ormco, callaway, hewlett-packard

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kato et al 11/358,102 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ANTHONY, JULIAN
REEXAMINATION

REMANDED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2173 Ex Parte 7363592 et al MICROSOFT CORP. Requester and Respondent v. GARY ODOM, Patent Owner and Appellant Odom v. Microsoft 95/001,208 11/125,276 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner Third Party Requester ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAO H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2173 Ex Parte 7363592 et al Ex parte GARY ODOM, Appellant 90/009,703 11/125,276 SIU 102(b) 102(b)/102(a)/103(a) Patent Owner Gary Odom Third Party Requester McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAO H
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Hillis et al 11/651,447 WALSH 103(a) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER BRUSCA, JOHN S

See, e.g., Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1309-20 (Fed. Cir 2007). In Ormco Corp,
the Court held that when dependent claims “were found to have been obvious, the broader claims . . . must also have been obvious.” In Ormco, “[dependent] claims 10 and 17 . . . were invalid as obvious” but independent claims 1 and 11 from which claims 10 and 17 depended, had not been determined to be obvious. The Court reasoned that “[b]ecause claims 10 and 17 were found to have been obvious, the broader claims 1 and 11 must also have been obvious.” Ormco, 498 F.3d at 1319. See also, Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A broader independent claim cannot be nonobvious where a dependent claim stemming from that independent claim is invalid for obviousness”) citing Ormco, 498 F.3d at 1319.

1637 Ex Parte Hantash et al 11/588,184 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HORLICK, KENNETH R

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Bobee et al 11/558,711 GARRIS 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER BARCENA, CARLOS

1765 Ex Parte Slack 11/654,960 GARRIS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

1771 Ex Parte Wen et al 11/887,680 11/887,683 McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WEISS, PAMELA HL

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Elnozahy et al 11/551,168 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) Jack V. Musgrove EXAMINER SAVLA, ARPAN P

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Bouchard et al 10/029,679 WINSOR 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, LAN DAI T

“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir, 1990).

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).. . . . . . . . .2114
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Ming et al 11/133,007 PAK 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R