donaldson, aristocrat, WMS, lindberg, sasse, cont'l paper bag

11976246

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte McCormick et al 11613766 - (D) SMITH 102/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC MOHADDES, LADAN

1772 Ex Parte Strack et al 11178037 - (D) PAK 103 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY NGUYEN, TAM M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Landers et al 11470825 - (D) SMITH 102/103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ZAMAN, FAISAL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Redel et al 11298779 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP COOK, CHRISTOPHER L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Oesterling et al 11206957 - (D) REIMERS 112(2)/103 103 Dierker & Associates, P.C. KISWANTO, NICHOLAS

The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 15 under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. Supp. Ans. 3-43 (citing In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) (“[I]f one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.”)). For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, the corresponding structure is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The corresponding structure for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm as well as the general purpose computer. WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The written description must at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338.

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Liebermann 10718023 - (D) FISCHETTI 102/103 102/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. ELISCA, PIERRE E

3742 Ex Parte Foster et al 11693143 - (D) CAPP 103 102/103 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. (Main) TRAN, THIEN S

3765 Ex Parte Fitzpatrick 11627792 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 Michael J. Fitzpatrick ANDERSON, AMBER R

3773 Ex Parte Schmieding et al 11775079 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Fetissova et al 11611701 - (D) SCHEINER 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY MELLER, MICHAEL V

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Fernihough et al 11869048 - (D) WARREN 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P

1715 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 10691319 - (D) SCHAFER 103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

1761 Ex Parte Trevino et al 12338014 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 SCHMEISER OLSEN & WATTS SANDERS, KRIELLION ANTIONETTE

1761 Ex Parte Trueman et al 11820613 - (D) SMITH 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY DIGGS, TANISHA

1765 Ex Parte Kurth et al 11042972 - (D) HOUSEL 103 112(1) PRICE HENEVELD LLP COONEY, JOHN M

1765 Ex Parte Vizzini et al 11508772 - (D) GARRIS 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC LU, C CAIXIA

1784 Ex Parte Morita et al 11976246 - (D) LORIN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC LANGMAN, JONATHAN C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Smilowitz et al 11483441 - (D) DILLON 101/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE LLP HOPE, DARRIN

2173 Ex Parte McLean et al 11560224 - (D) DILLON 103 IBM CORPORATION STREETS & STEELE HOPE, DARRIN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Farr et al 10831034 - (D) SMITH 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP TRAN, ELLEN C

2442 Ex Parte Jung et al 10816364 - (D) ANDERSON 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC SURVILLO, OLEG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2664 Ex Parte Moreb 11260437 - (D) HUGHES 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC CAMARGO, MARLY S.B.

The record reflects that it is common sense that a surveillance audio/video system be portable. See In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 735 (CCPA 1952) (Portability of a claimed device is insufficient to patentably distinguish the device over an otherwise old (known) device unless there are new or unexpected results.).

Lindberg, In re, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) 2144.04

2695 Ex Parte Kim et al 11038028 - (D) WARD 112(1)/103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP GIESY, ADAM

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Dai 11068225 - (D) WARD 102 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP ALMO, KHAREEM E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Akhmeteli et al 11517915 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. KREINER, MICHAEL B

In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681 (CCPA 1980) (when the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable, and the appellant must rebut this presumption with a preponderance of evidence).

Sasse, In re, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980) 716.07, 2121, 2121.02

3664 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11051383 - (D) ASTORINO 103 ABB Inc. MANCHO, RONNIE M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Beck et al 11407714 - (D) GREENHUT 103 PEARNE & GORDON LLP PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES

It has long been understood that invention is not confined to the particular form or mode described. See, e.g., Cont’l Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908).

baldwin graphic, interactive gift, mulder, gould, bey

10732862

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Sawhney et al 10795132 - (D) SCHEINER 103 DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC MAEWALL, SNIGDHA

1615 Ex Parte Wu et al 10663568 - (D) SCHEINER 112(1)/112(2)/103 SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP WORSHAM, JESSICA N

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Ding et al 11166659 - (D) HOFF 103 Synopsys/Fenwick LO, SUZANNE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Butterworth 11796076 - (D) JENKS Concurring McCOLLUM 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY YENKE, BRIAN P

2437 Ex Parte Nyberg 10256256 - (D) KRIVAK 112(1) Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

2446 Ex Parte Korzinov et al 10854532 - (D) EVANS 101/103 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC GILLIS, BRIAN J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Visser 10512721 - (D) CHEN 112(1)/103 Philips Electronics North America Corporation BROOME, SAID A

2695 Ex Parte Musto 11042893 - (D) KRIVAK 103 COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2898 Ex Parte Rulke et al 10987484 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson MALDONADO, JULIO J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte Leach et al 11699638 - (D) KERINS 103 LLNS / John P. Wooldridge LOBO, IAN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Saito et al 10532586 - (D) ASTORINO 103 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. SCRUGGS, ROBERT J

3745 Ex Parte Chen 10552376 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 HONEYWELL/GRIECCI VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M

3767 Ex Parte Chew 12227342 - (D) WALSH 103 Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione/Ann Arbor PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP

3767 Ex Parte Trovato et al 12306017 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Harter Secrest & Emery LLP PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP

3769 Ex Parte Rioux et al 11879537 - (D) McCOLLUM 102/103 Mayer & Williams CRANDALL, LYNSEY P

3775 Ex Parte Colquhoun et al 11754925 - (D) GREEN 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON WAGGLE, JR, LARRY E

3777 Ex Parte Schroder et al 11775915 - (D) JENKS Concurring McCOLLUM 103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP GUPTA, VANI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Lyons et al 10732862 - (D) JENKS 112(1) 103/obvious-type double patenting Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz LUCAS, ZACHARIAH

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte BABITZ 12636626 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(1) 102/103 Albemarle Netherlands B.V. WOOD, JARED M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Wisniewski et al 10724845 - (D) CURCURI 102 102/103 HARRINGTON & SMITH WALSH, JOHN B

2478 Ex Parte Parry et al 10615764 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SMARTH, GERALD A

“[A]lthough a method claim necessarily recites the steps of the method in a particular order, as a general rule the claim is not limited to performance of the steps in the order recited, unless the claim explicitly or implicitly requires a specific order.” Baldwin Graphics Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

2494 Ex Parte Boemker et al 11623606 - (D) JEFFERY 103 102/103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP ABRISHAMKAR, KAVEH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Abraham 11771831 - (D) MOORE 103 obvious-type double patenting STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

2657 Ex Parte BROSTROM 11456517 - (D) McKONE 103 103 MOORE AND VAN ALLEN PLLC FOR SEMC KAZEMINEZHAD, FARZAD

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2879 Ex Parte Vardeny et al 11404646 - (D) EVANS 103 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C BOWMAN, MARY ELLEN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Whitney 11245648 - (D) KERINS 103 103 MCGUIREWOODS, LLP KUMAR, KALYANAVENKA K

3664 Ex Parte Valen et al 10491295 - (D) MORRISON 102/103 102/103 VENABLE LLP AMIN, BHAVESH V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Mathys 11222468 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC LEWIS, JUSTIN V

3741 Ex Parte Vinson et al 10783162 - (D) RICE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DWIVEDI, VIKANSHA S

3752 Ex Parte Carey et al 11809290 - (D) POWELL 102 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 BUCKNAM AND ARCHER HWU, DAVIS D

3767 Ex Parte Guo et al 11967219 - (D) SCHEINER 103 obviousness-type double patenting SJM/AFD-WILEY Kite & Key, LLC OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES

3782 Ex Parte Littlejohn et al 10963686 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 103 Georgia-Pacific LLC DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Lyons et al 11508655 - (D) JENKS 112(1)/103/obvious-type double patenting Edward P.Gamson LUCAS, ZACHARIAH

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Macor et al 10566741 - (D) METZ 103 BASF Corporation HORNING, JOEL G

1746 Ex Parte Kannankeril et al 10522473 - (D) TIMM 103 Sealed Air Corporation SCHATZ, CHRISTOPHER T

1746 Ex Parte Kannankeril et al 10858803 - (D) TIMM 103 SEALED AIR CORPORATION GOFF II, JOHN L

1781 Ex Parte Hayes et al 12262883 - (D) COLAIANNI 103/obviousness-type double patenting E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY KHAN, TAHSEEN

1788 Ex Parte LANDRY et al 11680344 - (D) PRAISS 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC LE, HOA T

1789 Ex Parte Angadjivand et al 11693186 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103/obvious-type double patenting 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY STEELE, JENNIFER A

1791 Ex Parte Owoc 11703307 - (D) NAGUMO 103 SALIWANCHIK, LLOYD & EISENSCHENK DEGUIRE, KATHERINE E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Guillen et al 10488984 - (D) MOORE 103 Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc LY, CHEYNE D

2191 Ex Parte Herle 10600223 - (D) KRIVAK 103 Docket Clerk RAMPURIA, SATISH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Dow et al 10396230 - (D) JEFFERSON 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP LIN, JASON K

2442 Ex Parte Eisen 10464335 - (D) MOORE 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

2444 Ex Parte Cai 10210989 - (D) RUGGIERO 103/Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt IBRAHIM, MOHAMED

2444 Ex Parte Hubis 10714031 - (D) THOMAS 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP BENGZON, GREG C

2453 Ex Parte Molnar 09934738 - (D) NEW 103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q

2485 Ex Parte Sorebo 11028085 - (D) DANG 112(1)/103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. TORRENTE, RICHARD T

2641 Ex Parte Kikuchi 10574664 - (D) JEFFERSON 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP MEHRPOUR, NAGHMEH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Haidar 10416807 - (D) McKONE 103 BREINER & BREINER, L.L.C. PHAM, TUAN

2649 Ex Parte Niemi et al 10517533 - (D) DIXON 101/112(1)/103 Nokia Corporation Squire Sanders (US) LLP ALAM, FAYYAZ

2651 Ex Parte Erhart et al 10900560 - (D) HOFF 102/103 Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc. BLAIR, KILE O

2662 Ex Parte Singh 11164641 - (D) HUGHES 103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC OSINSKI, MICHAEL S

2664 Ex Parte Robsarve 11753833 - (D) DANG 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER) DAGNEW, MEKONNEN D

2828 Ex Parte Pezeshki et al 10794785 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP VAN ROY, TOD THOMAS

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Moran 11556860 - (D) MOORE 103 OSHA, LIANG LLP / SMITH SCHECHTER, ANDREW M

2885 Ex Parte Scannell 11801016 - (D) McKONE 103 Robert F. Scannell. Jr. TSIDULKO, MARK

2889 Ex Parte Choi et al 10788153 - (D) MOORE 103 F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC MAI, ANH T

2891 Ex Parte Chen et al 11543638 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP WRIGHT, TUCKER J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Smith 10701146 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(1)/103 Sue Z. Shaper DINH, TIEN QUANG

3644 Ex Parte Lynch 11402099 - (D) POWELL 103 James Ray & Associates Intellectual Property, LLC BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE

3654 Ex Parte Fast et al 11899260 - (D) SAINDON 103 JOHNS MANVILLE CAMPOS, JR, JUAN J

3657 Ex Parte Noguchi et al 11822671 - (D) POWELL 103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC WILLIAMS, THOMAS J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10876215 - (D) SAINDON 101/103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA PAGE, EVAN RANDALL

3716 Ex Parte Frenkel 11183247 - (D) JUNG 102/103 GTC Law Group LLP & Affiliates c/o CPA Global RADA, ALEX P

To satisfy the due diligence showing requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 1.131, Appellant must present proof of diligence, no matter how short the period to be covered. In re Mulder, 716 F.2d 1542, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (noting that focusing on the shortness of the period to be covered—two days—is misleading where there is no evidence of record showing diligence). Moreover, to establish diligence, the inventor must provide specific details as to what was done and when it was done during the critical period. See Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908, 918 (CCPA 1966).

Mulder, In re, 716 F.2d 1542, 219 USPQ 189 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2138.06, 2183, 2184

Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908, 150 USPQ 634 (CCPA 1966) 2138.06

To establish diligence for constructive reduction to practice, the attorney’s diligence must be shown. “[R]easonable diligence can be shown if it is established that the attorney worked reasonably hard on the particular application in question during the continuous critical period.” Cf. Bey v. Kollonitsch, 806 F.2d 1024, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (interference). “[The inventor’s] records did not show the exact days when activity specific to this application occurred. Thus, we cannot say that the board clearly erred in finding that ‘the documented activities with regard to [the present application] are insufficient by themselves to prove diligence.’” Id. at 1028 (second brackets in original). “[I]t may not be possible for a patent attorney to begin working on an application at the moment the inventor makes the disclosure, because the attorney may already have a backlog of other cases demanding his attention” so that “the courts have recognized that reasonable diligence is all that is required of the attorney.” Id. “Generally, the patent attorney must show that unrelated cases are taken up in chronological order, thus, the attorney has the burden of keeping good records of the dates when cases are docketed as well as the dates when specific work is done on the applications.” Id.

Bey v. Kollonitsch, 806 F.2d 1024, 231 USPQ 967 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2138.06

3721 Ex Parte Cadieux et al 10447063 - (D) WOOD 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. GERRITY, STEPHEN FRANCIS

3724 Ex Parte Lisec 10787744 - (D) BROWN 102/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON MICHALSKI, SEAN M

3738 Ex Parte Altmann 11935506 - (D) GREEN 103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated SHIPMON, TIFFANY P

3742 Ex Parte Musial 11524563 - (D) GREENHUT 103 EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP PASCHALL, MARK H

3763 Ex Parte Beckham 11551339 - (D) GREEN 103 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. FLICK, JASON E

3766 Ex Parte Korzinov et al 11894310 - (D) PRATS 102/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (SD) BERTRAM, ERIC D

3774 Ex Parte Chandrasekaran 11590107 - (D) TIMM 102 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE

3779 Ex Parte Marsella et al 11230147 - (D) GREEN 103 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP HENDERSON, RYAN N

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Dimitrova et al 10014179 - (R) HUGHES 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BAIG, SAHAR A

2487 Ex Parte Knighton et al 10947465 - (R) DANG 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN CZEKAJ, DAVID J

proctor & gamble, o'farrell, mouttet, bush, cowles

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Conti et al 11836033 - (D) PRATS 103 Hogan Lovells US LLP PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN

As the Federal Circuit has explained, even post-KSR, “patents are not barred just because it was obvious 'to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.'” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Luhrs et al 12143398 - (D) LORIN 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C. PENNY, TABATHA L

1716 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 11046656 - (D) GARRIS 103 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. WALLACE DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR

1744 Ex Parte Sheehan et al 11895756 - (D) HASTINGS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HINDENLANG, ALISON L

1756 Ex Parte Stachowiak 11254672 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1779 Ex Parte Hudson 11755106 - (D) HANLON 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC BASS, DIRK R

1788 Ex Parte Stevens et al 11529181 - (D) Per Curiam 112(1)/103 Siemens Corporation CHANG, VICTOR S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Bryant et al 11130728 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC. ULRICH, NICHOLAS S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Goodman et al 11554052 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 FLEIT, GIBBONS, GUTMAN, BONGINI & BIANCO P.L. PAPPAS, PETER

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2655 Ex Parte Kurzweil et al 10179486 - (D) HOFF 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) LAO, LUNSEE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Lantier 12013840 - (D) ASTORINO 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. FIORELLO, BENJAMIN F

3683 Ex Parte Stolmeier et al 11443914 - (D) CRAWFORD 102 ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. McCarter & English LLP SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3685 Ex Parte Goldberg 10913140 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG QAYYUM, ZESHAN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Anderson 11685822 - (D) PLENZLER 103 DEERE & COMPANY LOPEZ, FRANK D

3761 Ex Parte Fabo et al 11794942 - (D) GRIMES 103 Ballard Spahr LLP SU, SUSAN SHAN

3767 Ex Parte Carlyon 12409133 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Covidien BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

3767 Ex Parte Weber et al 11068330 - (D) GRIMES 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES

3767 Ex Parte Reynolds et al 12009783 - (D) SCHEINER 103 Eric Fincham BOSWORTH, KAMI A

3773 Ex Parte Stokes et al 11394150 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EREZO, DARWIN P

3777 Ex Parte Gleich 10552808 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS GUPTA, VANI

3781 Ex Parte Young 11640178 - (D) SPAHN 103 GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP ALLEN, JEFFREY R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Nordenhake 11428590 - (D) WEINBERG 103 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER) ZAHR, ASHRAF A

Nevertheless, it does not matter which reference is primary and which reference is secondary. “[W]here the relevant factual inquiries underlying an obviousness determination are otherwise clear, characterization by the examiner of prior art as ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ is merely a matter of presentation with no legal significance.” In re Mouttet, 686. F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accord, In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961). In Bush, the Court stated

[W]e deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary. It would perhaps have saved much argument of the kind we have before us if the Patent Office had stayed with its rejection of the claims as unpatentable over A and B ‘considered together’ and had merely stated its reasons for such rejection without formal alinement [sic] of the references. Fifteen years ago this court pointed out in In re Cowles, 156 F.2d 551, 554, 33 CCPA 1236, that such differing forms of expression did not constitute different grounds of rejection, were of little consequence, and that basing arguments on them was ‘attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Wang et al 11844407 - (D) WARD 102 102 HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP RAMADAN, RAMY O

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte DiMaggio 10610681 - (D) GREENHUT 103 103 Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb & Soffen, LLP BUTLER, MICHAEL E

3655 Ex Parte Martin, III et al 11782685 - (D) SCANLON 103 102 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. CHAU, TERRY C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Krzysik et al 10957506 - (D) PRATS 103 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP Christopher M. Goff (27839) BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

1655 Ex Parte Decombaz et al 10570185 - (D) SCHEINER 103 K&L Gates LLP HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Witzke et al 11636742 - (D) BEST 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP SNELTING, ERIN LYNN

1761 Ex Parte Korzenski et al 11552808 - (D) SMITH 103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1765 Ex Parte Vilato et al 11630772 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. SEIDLECK, JAMES J

1765 Ex Parte Busico et al 11665706 - (D) OWENS concurring NAGUMO 112(2)/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC LU, C CAIXIA

1779 Ex Parte Moller et al 10978888 - (D) GARRIS 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP SIEFKE, SAMUEL P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Bare et al 11205358 - (D) MORGAN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN

2183 Ex Parte Koch et al 10521881 - (D) CURCURI 103 POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC GIROUX, GEORGE

2184 Ex Parte Katibian et al 11285400 - (D) DANG 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED HASSAN, AURANGZEB

2185 Ex Parte Khan et al 11591010 - (D) JEFFERY 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY YU, JAE UN

2187 Ex Parte Brown 11343698 - (D) WARD 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP BERTRAM, RYAN

2194 Ex Parte Berstis et al 10832036 - (D) ANDERSON 102/103 BIGGERS & OHANIAN (END) HOANG, PHUONG N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Tsai 11680356 - (D) DANG 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TEITELBAUM, MICHAEL E

2426 Ex Parte Faihe 10262383 - (D) McKONE 102 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ZHONG, JUN FEI

2442 Ex Parte Graupner et al 11158777 - (D) POTHIER 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, ANGELA

2451 Ex Parte Daniels et al 11085647 - (D) CURCURI 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP WOOLCOCK, MADHU

2455 Ex Parte Stratton et al 11520268 - (D) DANG 102/103 VERIZON LAZARO, DAVID R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Huegle et al 10554419 - (D) KILE 103 Cozen O'Connor SMITH, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Correia et al 11602137 - (D) GROSSMAN 103 TREGO, HINES & LADENHEIM, PLLC WHITE, DWAYNE J

3767 Ex Parte Albrecht 10943218 - (D) JENKS 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC HALL, DEANNA K

3773 Ex Parte Dubrul et al 10943121 - (D) MILLS 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC OU, JING RUI

3782 Ex Parte Nowak et al 11078032 - (D) O’HEARN 103 DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia PASCUA, JES F

trans texas, dealertrack

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Shen et al 10621637 - (D) FITZPATRICK 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. OLSEN, KAJ K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Krieg et al 10444817 - (D) HOFF 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

2465 Ex Parte Chen et al 11701311 - (D) HOFF 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HSU, ALPUS

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Vandanapu et al 10741304 - (D) BUSCH 102/103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN JEANGLAUDE, JEAN BRUNER

2857 Ex Parte Kantzes et al 10435819 - (D) MOORE 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. LE, TOAN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Mahler et al 10588183 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Striker Striker & Stenby GALT, CASSI J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Gobush 10898584 - (D) SCANLON 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL WONG, JEFFREY KEITH

3742 Ex Parte Benjamin et al 11001219 - (D) BAHR 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC PAIK, SANG YEOP

3777 Ex Parte Keglovich et al 11562753 - (D) GREEN 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP DON W. BULSON (BRAI) REMALY, MARK DONALD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Shen et al 10621999 - (D) FITZPATRICK 251/103 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. OLSEN, KAJ K

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Forlenza et al 11034549 - (D) DIXON 102 102/103 IBM CORPORATION JOHNSON, JOHNESE T

2167 Ex Parte Zinda 10440281 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 JEANNE E. LONGMUIR WILSON, KIMBERLY LOVEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Matthews et al 11054638 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(1)/102/103 112(1)/112(2) Paul C. Matthews PARSLEY, DAVID J

3646 Ex Parte Wazybok et al 11940434 - (D) BROWNE 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. BURKE, SEAN P

3679 Ex Parte Hoggan 11214705 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 102/103 Thompson E. Fehr MACARTHUR, VICTOR L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 Ex Parte Ish 10913132 - (D) HOELTER 103 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC GINSBERG, OREN ISAAC

3777 Ex Parte Sherman et al 11323537 - (D) GREEN 103 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN) REARDON, ROCHELLE D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Zimmer et al 10498167 - (D) GREEN 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP KRASS, FREDERICK F

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Napolitano et al 10879696 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 ADDMG - 27975 WANG, EUGENIA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Cox et al 11460461 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. HOCKER, JOHN P

2159 Ex Parte Bender 11508567 - (D) BENOIT 103 Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC CASANOVA, JORGE A

2161 Ex Parte Fink et al 10376982 - (D) HOFF 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP NGUYEN, CINDY

2175 Ex Parte Cook et al 10792662 - (D) PETTIGREW 103 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP DISTEFANO, GREGORY A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Belimpasakis et al 10098848 - (D) HOFF 103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. NASH, LASHANYA RENEE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2636 Ex Parte Schiaffino et al 10954091 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Maschoff Brennan CURS, NATHAN M

2641 Ex Parte Cole 11537509 - (D) SMITH 103 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C. COSME, NATASHA W

2677 Ex Parte AGUERA y ARCAS 11737001 - (D) DESHPANDE 102/103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. TUNG, KEE M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Gallagher et al 12070514 - (D) MOORE 102/103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION CAROC, LHEIREN MAE ANGLO

In Trans Texas Holdings, the Federal Circuit provided a clear description of how to construe claims, noting:

In Phillips, we held that while “the specification [should be used] to interpret the meaning of a claim,” courts must not “import[ ] limitations from the specification into the claim.” Id. at 1323. We specifically noted that it is improper to “confin[e] the claims to th[e] embodiments” found in the specification, as Trans Texas asks us to do. Id.

In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The Federal Circuit noted that “[u]nder Phillips, dictionary definitions are also pertinent. See id. at 1318 (‘[T]he court has observed that dictionaries … can be useful in claim construction.’).” Id. at 1299. The Federal Circuit expressly commented that there were multiple dictionary definitions for the term “directly” but chose the “broadest” definition. See Trans Texas Holdings, 489 F.3d at 1299. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board decision in which the Board selected a dictionary definition that was broader than the examples disclosed in the Specification and was the broader dictionary definition. See Trans Texas Holdings, 489 F.3d at 1298-1299.

Trans Texas Holdings Corp., In re, 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2286, 2686.04

2877 Ex Parte Patel et al 11256377 - (D) HUME 103 Cislo & Thomas LLP BRYANT, REBECCA CAROLE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Schinke et al 11596450 - (D) WOOD 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP PEDDER, DENNIS H

3677 Ex Parte Cox et al 10775746 - (D) ASTORINO 103 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP MILLER, WILLIAM L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Webb 11011373 - (D) GREENHUT 103 112(2)/101/103 MORISHITA LAW FIRM, LLC LAYNO, BENJAMIN

Thus, the machine-or-transformation test remains a useful tool for determining whether a claim covers an abstract idea. See e.g., Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F. 3d 1315, 1331 et seq. (Fed. Cir. 2012).

3773 Ex Parte Carrison 10093264 - (D) O’HEARN 112(1)/103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP MASHACK, MARK F  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Williams 10679088 - (D) OSINSKI 103 W. Edward Johansen HALE, GLORIA M