braat, berg, eli lilly, basell, emert, goodman, fallaux

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Dal 10554644 - (D) OWENS 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON CHAWLA, JYOTI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Klein 11442966 - (D) HILL 103 Daniel J. Swirsky NGUYEN, THAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Uysal et al 11498344 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RAHMAN, SABANA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Kiryati et al 10930254 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP WERNER, DAVID N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Brunner et al 11073069 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. MCDONALD, SHANTESE L

3764 Ex Parte Axelrod 11338213 - (D) SPAHN 103 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) PASTEL LAW FIRM THANH, LOAN H

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1675 Ex Parte Pohl et al 11869693 - (D) FREDMAN obviousness-type double patenting Pabst Patent Group LLP BRADLEY,CHRISTINA

“Obviousness-type double patenting is a judicially created doctrine intended to prevent improper timewise extension of the patent right by prohibiting the issuance of claims in a second patent which are not ‘patentably distinct’ from the claims of a first patent.” In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “It requires rejection of an application claim when the claimed subject matter is not patentably distinct from the subject matter claimed in a commonly owned patent.” In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Two different tests have been set forth to determine whether the claims of an application are obvious over the claims of a commonly-owned patent. The “one-way” test asks whether the application claims under examination are obvious in view of the patent claims. Berg, 140 F.3d at 1432. The one-way test is the test usually applied in obvious-type double patenting rejections. In unusual circumstances, a “two-way” test is applied in which a second question (the second “way”) is asked: whether the patent claims are obvious in view of the application claims. Id.

“The two-way test is only appropriate in the unusual circumstance where, inter alia, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is ‘solely responsible for the delay in causing the second-filed application to issue prior to the first.”’ Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 n.7 (Fed.Cir.2001) (quoting Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437); see also Basell, 547 F.3d at 1376; Emert, 124 F.3d at 1461 (applying the one-way test because the applicant “had significant control over the rate of prosecution of the application,” “was responsible for the delays in prosecution,” and “orchestrated the rate of prosecution”); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (applying the one-way test because “PTO actions did not dictate the rate of prosecution”); . . . . In short, the applicant is entitled to the narrow exception of the two-way test when the PTO is at fault for the delay that causes the improvement patent to issue prior to the basic patent.

In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Braat, In re, 937 F.2d 589, 19 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 804
Berg, In re, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 804
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 , 2144.08 , 2165 , 2165.01
Emert, In re, 124 F.3d 1458, 44 USPQ2d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 804
Goodman, In re, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 804 , 806.04(i) , 1504.06 , 2164.06(b) , 2164.08

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Benevides et al 11573314 - (D) SMITH 103 Waters Technologies Corporation ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte Holley et al 11402648 - (D) SHIANG 103 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP TSENG, CHENG YUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Vagnati 11828490 - (D) SAADAT 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. VU, NGOC K

2426 Ex Parte Allport 10250150 - (D) STRAUSS 102 PIONEER NORTH AMERICA, INC. PENG, HSIUNGFEI POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original MEI, XU

2456 Ex Parte Ahmed et al 11804463 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. MCKENZIE, MARCUS A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Zikria et al 11280104 - (D) SCHEINER 103 EVELYN M. SOMMER FRONDA, CHRISTIAN L

2622 Ex Parte Chen et al 11228824 - (D) EVANS 102/103 LIU & LIU HICKS, CHARLES V

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Soyano 12232839 - (D) GARRIS 103 KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP GUPTA, RAJ R

2875 Ex Parte Karman et al 12091592 - (D) GARRIS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DZIERZYNSKI, EVAN P

2885 Ex Parte North 11925674 - (D) HASTINGS 101 obviousness-type double patenting GREG L. MARTINEZ MACCHIAROLO, LEAH SIMONE

2891 Ex Parte Bedell et al 12472943 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP SLUTSKER, JULIA

2893 Ex Parte Berman et al 11012838 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP RODELA, EDUARDO A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Haggard et al 11355813 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. POON, ROBERT

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Wei 10394137 - (D) EVANS 103 GARRETT IP, LLC C/O CPA Global NEGIN, RUSSELL SCOTT

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 APPLE COMPUTER INC. Requester v. MPMAN.COM, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000278 7065417 10/059,777 BLANKENSHIP 103 "LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY Third Party Requester: Novak, Druce & Quigg, LLP

perricone, net moneyin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Stevens et al 10525381 - (D) STRAUSS 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC TRAN, ANHTAI V

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Abe et al 11214763 - (D) BAHR 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC MCADAMS, BRAD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Bergquist et al 11556270 - (D) KERINS 102/103 DON W. BULSON (PARK) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP MCCALISTER, WILLIAM M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Thukral et al 12119143 - (D) HULSE 103 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP HARWARD, SOREN T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Dickinson et al 11186730 - (D) SMITH 103 102/103 Nixon Peabody LLP WILLIAMS, ARUN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Cropper et al 11745835 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC ORKIN, ALEXANDER J

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte KRALL et al 12480613 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP CHOI, FRANK I

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Fermin et al 11402443 - (D) PRAISS 103 Avery Dennison Corporation EMPIE, NATHAN H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Maxim et al 11532278 - (D) BUI 102 102/103 GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. c/o Amerson Law Firm, PLLC BAHTA, KIDEST

In rejecting claims under 35 USC 102(b), "[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation."  Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F. 3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed Cir 2005).  However, "it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention." Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F. 3d 1359, 1371 (Fed Cir 2008)

net moneyin HARMON 3: 7, 10,11; 4: 251; 6: 278, 317, 331; 10: 390, 395; 19: 432

2185 Ex Parte Dasgupta et al 11011861 - (D) DANG 103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC DILLON, SAMUEL A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte McQuaide 11004434 - (D) HUME 103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ ALCON, FERNANDO

2466 Ex Parte Zuckerman et al 12579774 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 112(1)/112(2) BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. JAROENCHONWANIT, BUNJOB

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Walter 11352642 - (D) BRANCH 103 AT&T Legal Department - G&G VIANA DI PRISCO, GERMAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Britton et al 11277397 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC For IBM SINGH, GURKANWALJIT

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte TACKETT 11748360 - (D) STAICOVICI 112(2) 112(1)/112(4)/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. MENDIRATTA, VISHU K

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 IN RE NAREN CHAGANTI 09/634,725 2013-1372 09/634,725 PER CURIAM 103 NAREN CHAGANTI; Deputy Solicitor USPTO LANIER, BENJAMIN E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORGAN STANLEY et al Defendants-Appellees 2013-1092 2013-1093 2013-1095 2013-1097 2013-1098 2013-1099 2013-1100 2013-1101 2013-1103 7,417,568 10/434,305 7,714,747 11/651,365 7,777,651 12/131,631 LOURIE SJ non-infringement, invalidity under 112, precluding doctrine of equivalents McKool Smith, P.C.; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP original STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. JEANGLAUDE, JEAN BRUNER; NGUYEN, LINH V

karsten, bancorp

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte AKARI et al 12484521 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. MILLER, DANIEL H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Carignan et al 11238978 - (D) FREDMAN 102 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP SONG, DAEHO D

See Karsten Manufacturing Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Invalidity on the ground of ‘anticipation’ requires lack of novelty of the invention as claimed … that is, all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim.”).
DONNER 10: 812-16
HARMON 6: 375

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Yang et al 11790658 - (D) GAUDETTE 102 ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM GUPTA, RAJ R

2834 Ex Parte Keefover et al 12085001 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 WARN, HOFFMANN, P.C. ANDREWS, MICHAEL

2837 Ex Parte Meyer et al 11576742 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC HOMZA, LISA NHUNG

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Patterson et al 12605539 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HEGGESTAD, HELEN F

1729 Ex Parte Chapman et al 12021394 - (D) NAGUMO 103 103 Quinn Law Group, PLLC WANG, EUGENIA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Graf et al 11541087 - (D) KIMLIN 103 103 ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES, LLC BERMAN, JACK I

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Beaudoin et al 12113372 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b) 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - SABIC EXATEC LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

1742 Ex Parte Iobst et al 12950401 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 BrooksGroup HAUTH, GALEN H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kidd 11828511 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Mochizuki et al 12025148 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (NY) MAKIYA, DAVID J

2867 Ex Parte Muller 11660495 - (D) GARRIS 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC ISLA RODAS, RICHARD

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Jung et al 11804304 - (D) PRATS 101/102 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE DOWNEY, JOHN R

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS CORP. Requester v. AUBURN UNIVERSITY Patent Owner 95001575 7409306 11/715,172 KOHUT 102/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.; Third Party Requester Jones Day DEB, ANJAN K original TSAI, CAROL S W

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
2761 SMARTGENE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADVANCED BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES, SA, AND ABL PATENT LICENSING TECHNOLOGIES, SARL, Defendants-Appellants. 2013-1186 6,081,786 09/283,702 6,188,988 09/523,532 TARANTO SJ ineligible under 101 Cahn & Samuels, LLP; Fenwick & West, LLP original MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC HAYES, JOHN W

Patent eligibility under section 101 is an issue of law. Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

marzocchi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Ohman et al 11661412 - (D) HASTINGS 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON HEINCER, LIAM J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Boss et al 10942418 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Robert H. Frantz KEATON, SHERROD L

2161 Ex Parte Meacham et al 11234697 - (D) GRIMES 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. LE, HUNG D

The Examiner has not cited evidence showing that this statement is not accurate. Cf. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224 (CCPA 1971) (specification is “presumptively accurate” and examiner has the burden of showing it is not).

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) 2107.01 , 2107.02 , 2124 , 2163 , 2163.04 , 2164.03 , 2164.04 , 2164.08
DONNER 9: 15, 25, 39, 195, 218, 332, 490, 814; 10: 283

2191 Ex Parte Waddington et al 11222418 - (D) MacDONALD 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. RAMPURIA, SATISH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2459 Ex Parte Shaw et al 11496144 - (D) MOHANTY 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, MINH CHAU

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Luther et al 10965624 - (D) JENKS 103 103 IBM AUS IPLAW (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC PILLAI, NAMITHA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Bodner et al 11014105 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 112(2) BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC BAYS, PAMELA M

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Brusk et al 10318165 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 SCA Hygiene Products AB c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Napolitano et al 12126568 - (D) BEST 103 ADDMG - 27975 CHAN, HENG M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Sismanis 11465155 - (D) KALAN 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS RUIZ, ANGELICA

2172 Ex Parte Parker et al 11060607 - (D) FREDMAN 103 J. B. Kraft PILLAI, NAMITHA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Jones et al 12169885 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. / Weatherford PATEL, HARSHAD R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte BOOKSTAFF 12392192 - (D) FETTING 102 TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC AMSDELL, DANA

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex parte KEMIRA CHEMICALS, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant 90011471 7,786,054 11/779,509 GUEST 103 King & Spalding JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE original ADMASU, ATNAF S

SUPREME COURT

REVERSED 
MEDTRONIC, INC. v. MIROWSKI FAMILY VENTURES, LLC 12–1128 BREYER in DJ action burden stays with patentee to show infringement

envirco, kemco, b. braun, donaldson, ibormeith, innovention toys, wyers, KSR, klein, bigio, encyclopaedia

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12752581 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12490018 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON

Construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is a two-step process. First, the claim must be analyzed to determine whether the claim language actually invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. See Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“If a claim element contains the word ‘means’ and recites a function, th[e] court presumes that element is a means-plus-function element under § 112, ¶ 6. . . . That presumption falls, however, if the claim itself recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.”). The second step is to “determine what structures have been disclosed in the specification that correspond to the means for performing that function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112, ¶ 6.” B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A means-plus-function claim “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that “the 'broadest reasonable interpretation' that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six of 35 USC § 112.” MPEP § 2181. “Accordingly, the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.” (id.) This “sets a limit on how broadly the PTO may construe means-plus-function language under the rubric of reasonable interpretation.” (emphasis added.) In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Thus, as articulated in MPEP 2181, “the USPTO must apply 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph in appropriate cases, and give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of and consistent with the written description of the invention in the application.” [Emphasis added.] (See also, Br. 3.)

A structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as a “corresponding structure” if the specification or the prosecution history “clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With means-plus-function claiming, the narrower the disclosed structure in the specification, the narrower the claim coverage. Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 732 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2181

Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) , 2103,2183, 2184

B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 43 USPQ2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2163, 2181, 2182

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

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Harrington et al 11459371 - (D) FREDMAN 101/103 Basch & Nickerson LLP QUADER, FAZLUL

2174 Ex Parte Chen et al 10427279 - (D) HOMERE 103 DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. International Business Machines Corporation NGUYEN, LE V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Deno et al 11116569 - (D) HULSE 112(1)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BAYS, PAMELA M

3788 Ex Parte Livingston 11938849 - (D) MORRISON 102/103 GE ENERGY GENERAL ELECTRIC C/O ERNEST G. CUSICK REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Kulkarni 11549023 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 Siemens Corporation EDWARDS, LINGLAN E

Whether a prior art reference is analogous to the claimed invention such that it qualifies as prior art for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a question of fact. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm't., Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In KSR, the Supreme Court “direct[ed] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 402); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 420. In an obviousness analysis,

[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.

In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Determining whether art is in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s claimed invention “requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention's subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. Although the Examiner is correct that the Examiner’s claimed invention and the cited references are all broadly directed to computer programming (Ans. 24), Subramanian diverges substantially from the “the embodiments, function, and structure of [Appellant’s] claimed invention,” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, and the other cited prior art.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, ,   2145,   2216,   2242,   2286,   2616,   2642, 2686.04

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Klapka et al 10497852 - (D) NEW 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) WALSH, DANIEL I

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Barry et al 11451634 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 102/103 MAYER & WILLIAMS PC BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Nagghappan 12904286 - (D) MURPHY 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC KEYWORTH, PETER

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Lee et al 12100173 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. BATURAY, ALICIA

2448 Ex Parte Bowen et al 11778354 - (D) FETTING Dissenting-in-part and Concurring-in-part SPAHN 101 101/103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON STRANGE, AARON N

2452 Ex Parte Wardwell 10529701 - (D) Per Curiam 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. NGUYEN, THU V

2452 Ex Parte Curtis et al 11483347 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC GOLABBAKHSH, EBRAHIM

2478 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11953810 - (D) WINSOR 103 LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE SCIACCA, SCOTT M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Primous et al 11529709 - (D) SHIANG 103 Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P. -Hubbell NWUGO, OJIAKO K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Joachim et al 11661161 - (D) KALAN 102/103 VENABLE LLP CHAN, TSZFUNG JACKIE

2853 Ex Parte Laksin et al 10586098 - (D) KALAN 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP SHAH, MANISlH S

2878 Ex Parte Feliss et al 10931679 - (D) KALAN 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP DOWLING, WILLIAM C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Gordon 11351790 - (D) SMEGAL 103 GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. MCCARRY JR,ROBERT J

3657 Ex Parte Balsells 12614769 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP BURCH, MELODY M

3689 Ex Parte Niethammer 10804683 - (D) FETTING 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Field 11748740 - (D) MORRISON 103 FAY SHARPE LLP WEAVER, SUE A

3788 Ex Parte Olsen et al 11512677 - (D) CAPP 103/obviousness-type double patenting Pauley Peterson & Erickson REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC, MEDTRONIC CV LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR GALWAY, LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, AND EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES (U.S.), INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1117 7,892,281 12/348,892 10/412,634 11/352,614 12/029,031 PROST SJ invalidity 102 35 U.S.C. § 120 Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

Citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., 609 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the district court noted that under § 120, a later filed application may claim priority based on an earlier filed application if, inter alia, the later filed application contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.

Section 120 allows a later filed patent application to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States if, among other requirements,3 “it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application . . . submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director.” 35 U.S.C. § 120. We recently clarified that the “specific reference” requirement mandates “each [intermediate] application in the chain of priority to refer to the prior applications.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1352.

3 The other requirements, which are not at issue in this appeal, are that (1) the invention described in the new application must be disclosed in an application previously filed in the United States; (2) the application must be filed by the inventor(s) named in the previously filed application; and (3) the application must be co-pending with the earlier application at some point. 35 U.S.C. § 120; Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1349-50.

deere, innova, hewlett-packard, roberts, paragon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Shim et al 11336110 - (D) WARREN 102/103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP TRAN, TONY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Park et al 11508300 - (D) ADAMS 103 103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC LUONG, PETER

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Hashimoto et al 12516092 - (D) KOKOSKI 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP PATEL, DEVANG R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte LUBBERS et al 11771411 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 McCarthy Law Group PARIKH, KALPIT

2194 Ex Parte Gikas et al 11311759 - (D) STRAUSS 112(1) 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION KRAFT, SHIH-WEI

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Zhu et al 11113852 - (D) JENKS 103 ADDMG - BlackBerry BLAIR, KILE O

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12584791 - (D) BEST 102/103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE ALLEN, STEPHONEB

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES, INC. Requester, Appellant v. SULZER MIXPAC AG Patent Owner, Respondent 95001656 7815384 11/563,791 SONG 103 K&L Gates LLP Third Party Requester: CANTOR COLBURN LLP LEWIS, AARON J original WALCZAK, DAVID J

DENIED 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES, INC., Requester, Appellant v. RICHARD PARKS CORROSION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Patent Owner, Respondent 95001371 7,144,170 11/003,449 KERINS 103 K&L Gates LLP LEWIS, AARON J original WALCZAK, DAVID J

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

VACATED AND REMANDED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MASABA, INC., Defendant-Appellee 2013-1302 7,470,101 11/975,205 7,618,213 11/631,975 CLEVENGER concurring RADER SJ non-infringement claim construction Dicke, Billig & Czaja, PLLC; Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, P.C. FOX, CHARLES A; LAGMAN, FREDERICK LYNDON

First, in claim construction, one must not import limitations from the specification that are not part of the claim. Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Indeed, claims generally are not limited to any particular embodiment disclosed in the specification, even where only a single embodiment is disclosed. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Second, and relevant to this case, a system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (“The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.”). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys. Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 72 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2004)  2173.05(g)
DONNER 10: 675-83
HARMON 6: 118, 121, 158, 169, 327; 10: 348

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114
DONNER 14: 89, 175, 217
HARMON 1: 172; 4: 205; 7: 241, 278

paragon HARMON 6: 71, 169c, 188, 450