1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1646 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/594,148 GREENdissenting FREDMAN101/112(1) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SEHARASEYON, JEGATHEESAN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1714 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11/478,401 COLAIANNI103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER KUNEMUND, ROBERT M
1723 Ex Parte Thielert 10/520,853 HANLON103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER MERKLING, MATTHEW J
1727 Ex Parte Gao et al 11/106,225 COLAIANNI112(2)/102(b) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M
“[W]hen an applicant puts forth relevant evidence . . . the Board must consider such evidence.” In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
1734 Ex Parte Irie et al 10/244,010 COLAIANNI103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2185 Ex Parte Jeong et al 10/982,560 COURTENAY102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T
2186 Ex Parte Nevill10/781,867 SAADAT102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2424 Ex Parte Boudreau et al 10/318,116 MORGAN102(b)/103(a)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q
2451 Ex Parte NISHIMURA et al 11/844,182 HUGHES102(e) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K
2600 Communications 2625 Ex Parte Vega et al 10/697,010 DANG103(a)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ZHU, RICHARD Z
2628 Ex Parte LAMPING et al 09/124,805 STEPHENS102(b) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, JIN CHENG
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2894 Ex Parte Gore et al 11/426,677 WHITEHEAD, JR.103(a)/102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAM, THANH V
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3714 Ex Parte Hazama 09/817,123 KIM103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION EXAMINER MOSSER, ROBERT E
3764 Ex Parte Loyd et al 11/322,443 SAINDON102(e)/102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2600 Communications 2627 Ex Parte Kazi et al 10/376,902 HOMERE103(a)102(e)/103(a) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP EXAMINER PARDO, THUY N
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3656 Ex Parte Peterson et al 10/903,121 STAICOVICI102(b)/103(a)112(2) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER LUONG, VINH
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3711 Ex Parte Matos 10/841,326 SPAHN112(2)/102(b)/102(e) 102(b)/102(e) INNOVAR, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIEN T
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1618 Ex Parte Lizio et al 10/564,096 ADAMS112(1)/102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER WESTERBERG, NISSA M
1745 Ex Parte Harding et al 11/787,260 GUESTconcurring TORCZON103(a) The Jackson Patent Group EXAMINER BELL, WILLIAM P
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).
1798 Ex Parte Polat et al 10/740,261 GUEST103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2129 Ex Parte Vilalta et al 09/906,168 COURTENAY112(1)/101/102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER STARKS, WILBERT L
See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.”).
2167 Ex Parte Bergholz 11/222,881 GONSALVES103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER BADAWI, SHERIEF
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2422 Ex Parte Washino 10/418,341 DANG103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P
2453 Ex Parte Issa 11/234,493 DANG103(a) FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C
2600 Communications 2629 Ex Parte Toyozawa et al 10/541,092 KOHUT102(e)/103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER CHOW, YUK
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2819 Ex Parte Santurkar et al 11/244,572 DANG102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MAXIMILIAN R. PETERSON EXAMINER TAN, VIBOL
2855 Ex Parte Meinlschmidt et al 10/381,038 DANG103(a) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER VERBITSKY, GAIL KAPLAN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3618 Ex Parte Ledger et al 11/549,354 HOELTER103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER PHAN, HAU VAN
3635 Ex Parte Baratuci et al 11/305,041 BARRETT102(b)/103(a) ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3721 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/490,165 BARRETT103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH
3754 Ex Parte Dux et al 10/149,988 SPAHN102(b) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER NICOLAS, FREDERICK C
3788 Ex Parte Mitten et al 11/025,743 ASTORINO 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2123 Ex Parte Alicherry et al 10/426,501 DROESCH102(b) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R
2163 Ex Parte Meiresonne 09/938,163 BAUMEISTER103(a)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, MERILYN P
2600 Communications 2617 Ex Parte Kregel 12/099,930 DROESCH103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER CUMMING, WILLIAM D
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3628 Ex Parte Alam et al 11/767,574 KIM103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER JABR, FADEY S
Appellant is their own lexicographer, and by using the transitional phrase “consist of,” Appellant has made a conscious choice to exclude systems that gather information from resources other than those listed. SeeIn re Gray, 53 F.2d 520, 521 (CCPA 1931). While there are two exceptions to such exclusions, neither are applicable here. SeeEx parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (impurities are not excluded); Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 1331-32 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (items unrelated to the group are not excluded).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3716 Ex Parte Rathsack et al 10/409,285 GREENHUT103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HSU, RYAN
To use 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) (citation omitted).
3784 Ex Parte Choi 10/683,600 SPAHN103(a) ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE, LLP EXAMINER JIANG, CHEN WEN AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2178 Ex Parte Graham et al 10/278,763 COURTENAY103(a)103(a) SOMMER BARNARD PC EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2819 Ex Parte Shumarayev et al 11/006,420 STEPHENS103(a)102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MAXIMILIAN R. PETERSON EXAMINER WHITE, DYLAN C
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3618 Ex Parte Martin et al 11/453,689 SAINDONDissenting McCARTHY103(a)/102(b)COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER RESTIFO, JEFFREY J
3684 Ex Parte Martignoni11/789,331 KIM102(b)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Scott P. Zimmerman, PLLC - Others EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3715 Ex Parte Strauser 11/672,784 GREENHUT103(a)103(a) LARSON AND LARSON EXAMINER YIP, JACK AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,773 GARRIS103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2163 Ex Parte Pilu et al 10/868,368 EASTHOM102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D
2173 Ex Parte Cowan et al 11/313,903 DANG103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER RIEGLER, PATRICK F
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2444 Ex Parte Bandholz et al 11/008,811 SMITH102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER RICHARDSON, THOMAS W
2600 Communications 2627 Ex Parte Nakao 11/143,576 DILLON103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER FISCHER, MARK L
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2814 Ex Parte Bawendi et al 10/958,659 ROBERTSON102(e)/103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D
2829Ex Parte Lim et al 10/664,982 HAHN103(a) CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, HA T
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3621 Ex Parte Nagao 10/965,846 CRAWFORD112(2)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COPPOLA, JACOB C
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3784 Ex Parte Najewicz 11/437,003 KOHUT103(a) General Electric Company EXAMINER BAUER, CASSEY D
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3768 Ex Parte Rubin et al 10/341,526 MILLS103(a) MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1627 Ex Parte Tamura et al 11/783,590 PRATS251/103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN
The recapture rule “prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims.” In re Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468.
Application of the recapture rule is a three step process. . . . The first step is to determine whether and in what aspect the reissue claims are broader than the patent claims. . . . [A] reissue claim that deletes a limitation or element from the patent claims is broader with respect to the modified limitation. . . . Next, the court must determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to surrendered subject matter. . . . To determine whether an applicant surrendered particular subject matter, we look to the prosecution history for arguments and changes to the claims made in an effort to overcome a prior art rejection. . . . [In] the third step of the recapture analysis . . . the court must determine whether the surrendered subject matter has crept into the reissue claim.
In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
“In discussing this third step, it is important to distinguish among the original claims (i.e., the claims before the surrender), the patented claims (i.e., the claims allowed after surrender), and the reissue claims.” Id. Thus,“recapture may be avoided under this final step of the analysis if the reissue claims "materially narrow" the claims relative to the original claims such that full or substantial recapture of the subject matter surrendered during prosecution is avoided.” Id. (quoting N. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
However, “if the reissue claim is as broad as or broader [than the canceled or amended claim] in an aspect germane to a prior art rejection, but narrower in another aspect completely unrelated to the rejection, the recapture rule bars the claim . . . .” In re Clement, 131 F.3d at 1470.
Clement, In re, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . 1412.02
North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . 1412.02
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3616 Ex Parte Szymanski et al 10/947,077 BAHR112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER ILAN, RUTH
In effect, Appellants’ Specification and claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it, covering all potential joints/linkages and sensor configurations later invented and determined to fall within the claims’ functional boundaries. This is not sufficient to satisfy the description requirement. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (stating that a sufficient description of a genus requires disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus to permit one of skill in the art to “‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus”).
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1637 Ex Parte Bard et al 11/159,412 MILLS102(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3618 Ex Parte Steins 11/300,006 SPAHN102(b) Karl M. Steins Steins & Associates EXAMINER OLSZEWSKI, JOHN
3673 Ex Parte Hollander 11/701,980 KAUFFMAN103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G
Gzybowski’s flexible bag type container, when modified as proposed by the Examiner, could be opened by an adult, thwarting Gzybowski’s purpose of providing a tamperproof container, and rendering Gzybowski’s container unsuitable for its intended purpose. See Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Where the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious.).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3753 Ex Parte Haugaard 10/570,764 KAUFFMAN103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C AFFIRMED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2456 Ex Parte Puri et al10/191,892 ZECHER 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, VAN KIM T
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3664 Ex Parte Myers et al 11/067,181 SAINDON103(a) HUGH P. GORTLER EXAMINER JEN, MINGJEN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3767 Ex Parte Lobbins et al 11/562,042 BAHR112(2)/103(a) MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. EXAMINER CARPENTER, WILLIAM R AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1715 Ex Parte Haynes et al 11/588,953 SMITH103(a)/112(1) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA GlobalEXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
1746 Ex Parte Hayes et al 11/594,522 NAGUMO103(a)103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER SQUALLS, MARGARET
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2159 Ex Parte Schofield 11/260,062 BARRY102(b)/103(a) 102(b) IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. EXAMINER SOMERS, MARC S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3728 Ex Parte Elstone et al11/103,143 SPAHN103(a)103(a) Walter J. Tencza Jr. EXAMINER HICKS, ROBERT J REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 3762 Ex Parte 7236821 et alINNERPULSE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION Patent Owner 95/000,330 10/079,056 COCKS102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: AARON L. PARKER, ESQ. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNLAP, L.L.P. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BRAD D. PEDERSEN, ESQ. PATTERSON THUENTE CHRISTENSEN PEDERSEN, P.A. original EXAMINER GETZOW, SCOTT M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART & REVERSED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 3765 Ex Parte 7159280 et al PRECISION COMB WORKS, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of MARRINER IMPORT EXPORT & FALLERS INTERNATIONAL LTD. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,356 10/969,261 DELMENDO103(a) 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: LARRY G. BROWN CUENOT, FORSYTHE & KIMEXAMINER WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original EXAMINER SUTTON, ANDREW W AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1637 Ex Parte Larder et al 11/803,541 GRIMES103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER MUMMERT, STEPHANIE KANE
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1712 Ex Parte Buckanin et al 11/183,004 TIMM103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P
1727 Ex Parte Kocha et al 11/172,504 TIMM103(a) CARY W. BROOKS General Motors Corporation EXAMINER ROE, CLAIRE LOUISE
1729 Ex Parte Meltser et al10/982,304 SMITH112(2)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER ECHELMEYER, ALIX ELIZABETH
1763 Ex Parte Fregonese 11/573,695 WARREN103(a) PARFOMAK, ANDREW N. NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS PA EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2166 Ex Parte Jensen et al 11/190,179 CHEN102(e)/103(a) INVENSYS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT EXAMINER YEN, SYLING
2167 Ex Parte Deubel et al 11/111,508 JEFFERY101/102(b) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP EXAMINER BADAWI, SHERIEF
In short, Appellants’ amendment to the Specification—without a corresponding claim amendment—falls short of overcoming the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claim 16. See id. (noting that adding the term “non-transitory” to a claim drawn to computer readable medium that covers both transitory and nontransitory embodiments can avoid a rejection under § 101). Accord Ex parte Busche, No. 2009-007718, 2010 WL 5184640, at *5 (BPAI 2010) (nonprecedential).
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2424 Ex Parte Dresti et al 10/749,089 KRIVAK103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER HUYNH, SON P
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2815 Ex Parte Omi et al10/732,511JEFFERY103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WARREN, MATTHEW E
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3693Ex Parte Sellers et al 09/909,439 PETRAVICK103(a) PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN PLLC EXAMINER BORLINGHAUS, JASON M
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1615 Ex Parte Hansen 10/915,274 ADAMS103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER PALENIK, JEFFREY T
1628 Ex Parte Johal 10/371,730 ADAMS103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1723 Ex Parte Maus10/763,027 HANLON102(b) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER MERKLING, MATTHEW J
2600 Communications 2612 Ex Parte Kirmse et al11/948,255 COURTENAY102(b)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER MEHMOOD, JENNIFER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1616 Ex Parte Goldstein et al 10/691,928 WALSH102(b)/103(a)103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1785 Ex Parte Hoshino 10/558,038 PAK103(a)103(a) DITTHAVONG MORI & STEINER, P.C. EXAMINER CHAU, LINDA N
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2161 Ex Parte Casion11/304,026DANG102(b)102(b) HODGSON RUSS LLP EXAMINER RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 3724 Ex Parte 6619168 et al ZUND SYSTEMTECHNIK AG and ZUND AMERICA, IN C. Requester, Appellant v. I-CUT, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,355 LEBOVITZ102(b)/103(a) CC Patent Owner: JANSSON SHUPE & MUNGER LTD. Third Party Requestor: JAMES F. BOYLE BOYLE FREDRICKSON SC EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1611 Ex Parte Gillis et al 10/922,239 PRATS103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D
1628 Ex Parte Pappas et al 12/351,942 ADAMS103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2167 Ex Parte Maeda et al10/905,048 JEFFERY102(b)/103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER BADAWI, SHERIEF
2600 Communications 2624 Ex Parte Huang et al 10/709,006 DANG112(1)/103(a) JIANQ CHYUN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE EXAMINER MOTSINGER, SEAN T
2627 Ex Parte Moscovitch 10/143,497 RUGGIERO103(a) RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER ORTIZ CRIADO, JORGE L
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2854 Ex Parte Michels et al 11/649,085 JEFFERY102(b)/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E
2885 Ex Parte Larsen et al 11/608,779 MORGAN103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER MAY, ROBERT J
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3618 Ex Parte Dresher 11/293,199 SAINDON103(a) TAIYO CORPORATION EXAMINER RESTIFO, JEFFREY J
3628 Ex Parte Ogg 10/677,619 KIM112(2)/103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER JOSEPH, TONYA S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3721 Ex Parte Keskiniva et al 10/563,821 BARRETT102(b)/103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC) EXAMINER LOPEZ, MICHELLE AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2424 Ex Parte Rakib 09/898,728 MANTIS MERCADER103(a) 103(a)MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER ANDRAMUNO, FRANKLIN S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3711 Ex Parte Jurmain et al 10/387,792 BAHR103(a)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SHERRILL LAW OFFICES EXAMINER CEGIELNIK, URSZULA M REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 3711 Ex Parte 6623381 et alACUSHNET COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. Patent of CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,444 DELMENDO102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: THE TOP-FLITE GOLF COMPANY, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Third-Party Requester: MAYER BROWN LLP EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER GORDEN, RAEANN
For ex parte reexaminations, the USPTO has clarified the procedure for seeking review of issues pertaining to substantial new question of patentability. See Clarification on the Procedure for Seeking Review of a Finding of a Substantial New Question of Patentability in Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings, 75 Fed. Reg. 36357-58 (Dep’t of Commerce, June 25, 2010) (hereinafter “Notice”) (delegating the authority to review issues related to the Examiner's determination that a reference raises a substantial new question of patentability to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, who may further delegate this authority to a panel of Administrative Patent Judges deciding the appeal in the ex parte reexamination proceeding).
The Notice, however, explicitly states that the delegation of review authority provided for review of an Examiner’s SNQ determination in ex parte reexaminations does not apply to inter partes reexaminations. See Notice, 75 Fed. Reg. at 36,358 (“The procedure set forth in this notice does not apply to inter partes reexamination proceedings. A determination by the USPTO in an inter partes reexamination either that no SNQ has been raised or that a reference raises a SNQ is final and non-appealable.”). AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1761 Ex Parte Wietfeldt et al 11/808,305 TIMM103(a) S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R
A composition is a mixture of substances that contains the specified ingredients at any time from the moment at which the ingredients are mixed together. See Exxon Chem. Pats. Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1557 (Fed. Cir 1995).
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3627 Ex Parte de Gruil11/857,492 KIM103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER ROJAS, HAJIME S
3644 Ex Parte Huynh 10/112,815 KAUFFMAN103(a) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP EXAMINER DINH, TIEN QUANG
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1627 Ex Parte Valiante 10/762,873 GRIMES103(a) NOVARTIS VACCINES AND DIAGNOSTICS INC. EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1762 Ex Parte Sarkisian et al 11/390,778 HANLON103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, VU ANH
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2162 Ex Parte Idicula et al 10/648,749 WINSOR102(e)/103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER COLAN, GIOVANNA B
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3679 Ex Parte Ohmura et al 10/235,428 SPAHN103(a) ARENT FOX KINTNER PLOTKIN & KAHN, PLLC EXAMINER MACARTHUR, VICTOR L REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 2876 Ex Parte 6565008 et al Inter Partes KINGPAK TECH. INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. ORIENT SEMICONDUCTOR ELECTRONICS, LTD. Requestor, Respondent 95/000,099 EASTHOMconcurring TORCZON314(a)/112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP Third Party Requester: Benjamin J. Hauptman Lowe Hauptman & Berner, LLP EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER PITTS, HAROLD I
See Application of Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244 (CCPA 1973) (“The question . . . is not whether ‘carrying’ was a word used in the specification as filed but whether there is support in the specification for employment of the term in a claim; is the concept of carrying present in the original disclosure?”)
Anderson, In re, 471 F.2d 1237, 176 USPQ 331 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . 2163.07, 2181 AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1623 Ex Parte Sirinyan et al 10/613,819 SCHEINER103(a) BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1745 Ex Parte Mahdi et al 11/261,955OWENS103(a) DOBRUSIN & THENNISCH PC EXAMINER ORLANDO, MICHAEL N
1761 Ex Parte McClung 10/333,101 GARRIS103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R
1762 Ex Parte Thies 10/769,210 GUESTconcurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part SMITH112(2)/101/102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER EGWIM, KELECHI CHIDI
1784 Ex Parte Saisho et al10/543,150 HASTINGS103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZIMMERMAN, JOHN J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2111 Ex Parte Harris et al 11/440,056 JEFFERY103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PATEL, NIMESH G 2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2432 Ex Parte Silhavy et al 10/887,340 POTHIER102(b)/103(a) Patent Law Works/Progress EXAMINER ZECHER, CORDELIA P K
2447 Ex Parte Patrick et al 10/873,685 SMITH103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER JEAN GILLES, JUDE
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2839 Ex Parte Zahnen et al 11/381,012 HASTINGS103(a) ADDMG - 27975 EXAMINER VU, HIEN D
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3625 Ex Parte Kirsch09/970,772 PETRAVICK103(a) DISNEY ENTERPRISES C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER FADOK, MARK A
“[T]here is no requirement that the prior art contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed invention.” Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1632 Ex Parte Smith et al 11/620,223 WALSH103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER HAMA, JOANNE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3691 Ex Parte Gavin et al 10/868,729 CRAWFORD102(e) KING & SPALDING EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3721 Ex Parte Henkel 11/134,113 GREENHUT103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH
The Examiner may take official notice of facts “beyond the record which, while not generally notorious, are capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute.”In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970) (citation omitted). However,
[a]ssertions of technical facts in areas of esoteric technology must always be supported by citation to some reference work recognized as standard in the pertinent art and the appellant given, in the Patent Office, the opportunity to challenge the correctness of the assertion or the notoriety or repute of the cited reference.
Id. (citation omitted). Where, as here, the Examiner relies on some unknown authority to resolve a contested core factual issue, Appellant is effectively deprived of this opportunity. App. Br. 8-9. This results in a record that is insulated from meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1733 Ex Parte Schmitt et al 10/582,451 FRANKLIN103(a)102(b)/103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER MCGUTHRY BANKS, TIMA MICHELE REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 1103 Ex Parte 5884039 et alEx parte INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 61, LLC 90/009,016 07/941,826EASTHOM103(a) Reed Smith, LLP Third Party Requester: Tawni L. Wilhelm Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP EXAMINER WOOD, WILLIAM H originally MARY R. BONZAGNI EXAMINER VANOY, TIMOTHY C AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1764 Ex Parte Shooshtari et al 11/799,904 McKELVEY102(b)/non-statutory obviousness double patenting JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER HUHN, RICHARD A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2164 Ex Parte Mueller et al 10/416,966 CHANG103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D
2193 Ex Parte Duranton et al 10/522,463 CHANG102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) DLA PIPER LLP (US) EXAMINER MALZAHN, DAVID H
2193 Ex Parte Mourra 10/906,592 SMITH102(e) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER VU, TUAN A
2196 Ex Parte Korall et al 10/284,235 FRAHM101/103(a) OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP EXAMINER CAO, DIEM K
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2813 Ex Parte Frohberg et al11/199,445 KRIVAKConcurring BAUMEISTER103(a) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON EXAMINER MALEK, MALIHEH
1742 Ex Parte Benavitz et al 11/757,143 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER HAUTH, GALEN H
