REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Nakatani et al 10/513,392 TIMM 103 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P. BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW
1785 Ex Parte Weerasinghe et al 10/962,994 BEST 112(1)/102/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP CHAU, LINDA N
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Saake et al 10/468,181 COURTENAY 103 EMC Corporation KIM, PAUL
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Tabatabai et al 09/865,030 POTHIER 103 WAGNER, MURABITO & HAO LLP SHANG, ANNAN Q
2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Braun 10/670,902 BARRY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Basch & Nickerson LLP DHINGRA, PAWANDEEP
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 HASBRO, INC. Appellant v. GANZ Patent Owner, Respondent 95/001,345 7568964 12/250,757 SIU 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP KISS, ERIC B original AHMED, MASUD
3731 Ex Parte Jagger et al 10/601,952 GRIMES 103
SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC SONNETT, KATHLEEN C
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Dietrich et al 10/551,108 OWENS dissenting NAGUMO 103 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. LEE, DORIS L
Our reviewing court has rejected the proposition that, “regardless of how broad, a disclosure of a chemical genus renders obvious any species that happens to fall within it.” In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In Lemin, cited by the majority, the court explained that :
The position of the Patent Office is, essentially, that Lemin has done no more than pluck a subgenus out of a generic disclosure by Jones, and has used that subgenus in precisely the manner taught by Jones.
Generally speaking, there is nothing unobvious in choosing ‘some’ among ‘many’ indiscriminately. Here, however, the choice is based on a discovery by Lemin that some compounds, falling within a prior art genus, have a special significance.
332 F.2d 839, 841 (citation omitted). Moreover, unlike the “multitude [1200] of effective combinations” disclosed by the reference patent in Merck, 874 F.2d at 807, the number of combinations in this case is truly astronomical.
Jones, In re, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . 707.07(f), 2143.01, 2144, 2144.05, 2144.08
Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Horikawa 11/122,249 HOMERE 102/103 102 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP RENNER, BRANDON M
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Mahalingam et al 10/436,310 FREDMAN 103 Avon Products, Inc. VU, JAKE MINH
To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness by showing secondary considerations of unexpected results, Appellants must first establish a nexus between the claimed invention and the allegedly unexpected results. See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“For objective evidence of secondary considerations to be accorded substantial weight, its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.”). “Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Duffin 10/473,643 GAUDETTE 103 TYCO Healthcare Group LP HUSON, MONICA ANNE
1765 Ex Parte Null 11/920,474 DELMENDO 102/103 SHELL OIL COMPANY VALDEZ, DEVE E
1775 Ex Parte Latino et al 10/963,139 OWENS 103 MORRISS O'BRYANT COMPAGNI, P.C. YOO, REGINA M
1782 Ex Parte Baumgartner et al 11/927,019 GARRIS 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP SMITH, PRESTON
1786 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/745,327 BEST 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. CHOI, PETER Y
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/393,641 CHEN 102/103 KRUEGER ISELIN LLP (1391) COUGHLAN, PETER D
2166 Ex Parte Ortwein et al 10/837,980 DILLON 102 IBM LOTUS & RATIONAL SW c/o GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ JOHNSON, JOHNESE T
2194 Ex Parte Krishnaswamy et al 10/808,223 MARTIN 112(1)/101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ZHEN, LI B
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Tao 11/469,626 EASTHOM 103 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC MAPA, MICHAEL Y
Therefore, Appellant attempts to limit the ordinary claim term “message” to exclude packets or other known message formats. However, the Federal Circuit recently reiterated the stringent standard for narrowing a claim term beyond its plain and ordinary meaning in Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America L.L.C., 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There, we explained that we will only interpret a claim term more narrowly than its ordinary meaning under two circumstances: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as [its] own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. Id. at 1365.
Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Bliznak 11/239,140 LORIN 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N
3637 Ex Parte Atkins 11/501,967 LEE 103 JAMES RAY & ASSOCIATES WILKENS, JANET MARIE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Francischelli et al 11/128,786 McCOLLUM 102 Medtronic CardioVascular COHEN, LEE S
No comments :
Post a Comment