schreiber, hewlett-packard, boehringer

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte Fox 12371895 - (D) SMITH 103 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY FIGUEROA, JOHN J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Goldberg et al 12296201 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS NGUYEN, HIEP VAN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Pacey et al 11791815 - (D) STEPHENS 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP WEATHERFORD, SYVILA

3752 Ex Parte Weis et al 12032150 - (D) KERINS 102 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. CERNOCH, STEVEN MICHAEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2882 Ex Parte Mulder et al 12076732 - (D) SMITH 102(e) 102e)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) ASFAW, MESFIN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Kish et al 12016110 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 102/103 BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS & MAIRE, P. A. KHATIB, RAMI

At the outset, we note that the limitation “for displaying system condition information” is a functional limitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[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).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 , 2112 , 2114
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

3686 Ex Parte Imai et al 11817217 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP HOLCOMB, MARK

We find that such “configured to” language merely represents a statement of intended use of the processing device which does not limit the claim. Particularly, an intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte ECKEL et al 12338026 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(1) 103 Miles & Stockbridge, PC PAK, HANNAH J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Wexler et al 12105092 - (D) PERRY 102(e)/103 VMWare, INC. EHICHIOYA, IRETE FRED

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Auriemma et al 12205470 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC BELANI, KISHIN G

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Sanches 12004359 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 NCR Corporation STANFORD, CHRISTOPHER J

2891 Ex Parte Michael et al 12262288 - (D) HANLON 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FULK, STEVEN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Le et al 11716374 - (D) MURPHY 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. DUFFY, DAVID W

3748 Ex Parte Birch et al 11992454 - (D) WOODS 103 Edwards Vacuum, Inc. DAVIS, MARY ALICE

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
3303 REFOCUS OCULAR, INC. Requester, Respondent v. READING ENHANCEMENT CO. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7,736,389 B1 et al 07/712,359 95002082 - (D) MARTIN 103 Edwin H. Crabtree REQUESTER: WILLIAM A. MUNCK, ESQ. original COHEN, PONTANI & LIEBERMAN FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original SMITH, JEFFREY A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 REFOCUS OCULAR, INC. Requester, Respondent v. READING ENHANCEMENT CO. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8,167,938 B1 et al 12/799,643 95002083 - (D) MARTIN 103 EDWIN H. CRABTREE REQUESTER: WILLIAM A. MUNCK, ESQ. FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original SHIPMON, TIFFANY P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 Ex Parte FORM FACTOR, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant. Ex Parte 6,441,315 et al 09/189,761 90009843 - (D) JEFFERSON 102/103 102/103 Ken Burraston/FormFactor KIRTON & MCCONKIE TARAE, CATHERINE MICHELLE original CUNEO, KAMAND

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 MICRO–PROBE INCORPORATED, Requester and Cross–Appellant, v. FORM FACTOR, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant. Ex Parte 6,825,422 et al 10/174,455 95000583 - (D) JEFFERSON 102(e)/102/103 KEN BURRASTON/FORMFACTOR KIRTON & MCCONKIE Rimmell, Samuel original PATEL, ISHWARBHAI B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. Requester v. ORBUSNEICH MEDICAL, INC. Patent Owner/Appellant Ex Parte 7942922 et al 12/878,341 95001769 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ARNOLD & PORTER LLP WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original STROUD, JONATHAN R

rouffet

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Sanders 11376896 - (D) CURCURI 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP LIAO, JASON G

2196 Ex Parte Hinkley 11365124 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 Baker Botts LLP SWIFT, CHARLES M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte MORGANA 12142174 - (D) DIXON 103 Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P.L. SALVUCCI, MATTHEW D

2649 Ex Parte Benjamin et al 11751701 - (D) FRAHM 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC TRAN, PAUL P

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Bach Andersen et al 11569270 - (D) WILSON 112(1)/103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP KIM, JOHN K

It is well understood that to reject a claim in a patent application as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner must establish a prima facie case of obviousness, which includes a showing that each of the claimed limitations are either shown or suggested by the prior art. “In the absence of a proper prima facie case of obviousness, an applicant who complies with the other statutory requirements is entitled to a patent.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Rouffet, In re, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 1216.01

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Brown 10818879 - (D) MEDLOCK 102(e)/103 Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. PASS, NATALIE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Faulconer 12146940 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 EDWARD S. WRIGHT HADEN, SALLY CLINE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Karrer 12142099 - (D) OWENS 103 102(e)/102/103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C CHEN, XIAOLIANG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Jain 11938975 - (D) BAHR 102/103 102 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global SANDERSON, JOSEPH W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Zeiner et al 12113829 - (D) BROWN 103 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC WEEKS, GLORIA R

3775 Ex Parte Berberich et al 11962581 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC SEVILLA, CHRISTIAN ANTHONY


AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Kirkpatrick 12366719 - (D) SMITH 103 Brown Patent Law, P.L.L.C. COLEMAN, RYAN L

1729 Ex Parte FAGLEY et al 12358989 - (D) SMITH 103 112(1) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION WANG, EUGENIA

1765 Ex Parte Christel et al 11886818 - (D) SMITH 102/103 Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein TISCHLER, FRANCES

1771 Ex Parte Selby et al 12373490 - (D) OWENS,FRANKLIN, COLAIANNI 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY WEISS, PAMELA HL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2659 Ex Parte Wu et al 11558168 - (D) ENGELS 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Hart et al 11735871 - (D) HANLON 102(e)/103 Advantest c/o Murabito Hao & Barnes LLP CAMPBELL, SHAUN M

2835 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 12753084 - (D) ROESEL 112(2) 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY GANDHI, JAYPRAKASH N

2856 Ex Parte Underwood et al 12370745 - (D) DERRICK 103 KLINTWORTH & ROZENBLAT IP LLC AND THE BOEING COMPANY DEVITO, ALEX T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Diaz et al 12054702 - (D) COCKS 103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC UTAMA, ROBERT J

3724 Ex Parte Oba et al 11786810 - (D) McCARTHY 103 PETERSON, KENNETH E WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER

REHEARING

DENIED
3664 Ex Parte Breed 11936950 - (D) SMEGAL 112(1)/103 BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ NGUYEN, BAO LONG T

REEXAMINED

AFFIRMED (declined to adopt)
2782 HTC CORPORATION Requester and Appellant v. FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGY Respondent and Patent Owner Ex Parte 6,134,606 et al 08/900,486 95001431 - (D) HOFF 102/103 Herskovitz & Associates, PLLC ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original NGUYEN, TANH Q

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 VESDIA CORPORATION Requester v. TUITIONFUND, LLC Ex Parte 7,653,572 et al 12/347,136 95001601 - (D) HOFF 102/103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP HOTALING, JOHN M original MYHRE, JAMES W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 SNOW ECONOMICS, INC. Requester, Respondent v. TOPGUN SNOW MAKING SYSTEMS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 6547157 et al 09/754,989 95001961 - (D) SONG 112(2) 112(2)/102(e)/102/103/305 HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI PC KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original HWU, DAVIS D

3774 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. Requester v. ORBUSNEICH MEDICAL, INC. Patent Owner/Appellant Ex Parte Addonizio et al 7,967,852 12/878,232 95001768 - (D) MARTIN 102(e)/102/103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original STROUD, JONATHAN R

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 GOOGLE, INC. and MICROSOFT CORP. v. PAID SEARCH ENGINE TOOLS, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant. Requesters and Respondents, Ex Parte 7,974,912 et al 11/379,897 95001863 - (D) HOFF 102 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP WORJLOH, JALATEE original AKINTOLA, OLABODE

gardner2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Takeuchi et al 11719641 - (D) TIMM 103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON P.C. KEARNEY, NAIMA J

2834 Ex Parte Stiesdal 12313602 - (D) OWENS 102 SIEMENS CORPORATION MULLINS, BURTON S

2848 Ex Parte MAYER 12694887 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WU, JERRY

2882 Ex Parte BUTLER et al 12244326 - (D) OWENS 102 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. NGUYEN, HUNG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Dell et al 10463017 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 LUEDEKA NEELY GROUP, P.C. MENDOZA, MICHAEL G

3777 Ex Parte Lam et al 11535441 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Boston Scientific Corporation c/o Lowe Graham Jones IP, JASON M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Junker 12124398 - (D) HILL 112(1)/103 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC MONDT, JOHANNES P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3722 Ex Parte Dost 11810706 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/103 103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP GATES, ERIC ANDREW

While Appellant argues that Caldwell does not teach the specific dimensions claimed, Appellant offers no explanation as to why the claimed device would perform any differently than the device of Caldwell. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device). Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error.

Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2144.04

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Abriles et al 11440683 - (D) GARRIS 112(2) 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global, Re. Pratt & Whitney TAKEUCHI, YOSHITOSHI

1792 Ex Parte Kobussen et al 10598687 - (D) KRATZ 103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. LONG, LUANA ZHANG

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Volk et al 10883372 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 Entropy Matters LLC BAHTA, KIDEST
AFFIRMED 2482 Ex Parte Salmonsen 10313536 - (D) HUME 103 Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (CSR) KIM, HEE-YONG

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2486 Ex Parte Zinin 10782390 - (D) DIXON 102(e)/103 112(1)/102(e)/103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation VO, TUNG T

2488 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11096825 - (D) DIXON 103 BGL/Broadcom WONG, ALLEN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Uoi et al 12440202 - (D) DIXON 103 Foley & Lardner LLP BADER, ROBERT N.

2643 Ex Parte Cole et al 12128737 - (D) FRAHM 112(2)/103 101/103/obviousness-type double patenting RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP ZEWDU, MELESS NMN

2646 Ex Parte Li et al 11371707 - (D) JURGOVAN 102(e)/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent IQBAL, KHAWAR

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Cyman et al 11709497 - (D) PAK 103 MCCRACKEN & FRANK LLC BANH, DAVID H

2882 Ex Parte FAN et al 12244548 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. LIU, CHIA HOW MICHAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Hartley et al 11226611 - (D) JENKS 103 BGL/Cook - Chicago COLELLO, ERIN L

3766 Ex Parte Jayne et al 12372523 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. -PHYSIO -CONTROL, INC. HELLER, TAMMIE K

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Hofmann et al 11863892 - (D) BUI 101/102/103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP SIMS, JING F

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte La Forest et al 12469384 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 HONEYWELL/S&S MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
2301 Ex parte WEBVENTION GROUP LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 5251294 et al 07/476,931 90012479 - (D) POTHIER 103 Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/Reexams WORJLOH, JALATEE original HERNDON, HEATHER R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 HONG ANN TOLL INDUSTRIES CO., LTD. Requester v. TZU-CHIEN WANG Patent Owner Ex Parte 8,070,377 B2 et al 12/618,825 95002103 - (D) MARTIN 103 KAMRATH IP Lawfirm, P.A. DEMILLE, DANTON D original FERGUSON, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 AURORA SFC SYSTEMS, INC., Respondent, Requester v. WATERS TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 6561767 et al 09/918,436 95001910 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 McCarter & English LLP / Waters Third Party Requester: LIEBERMAN & BRANDSDORFER, LLC ENGLISH, PETER C original SOLAK, TIMOTHY P

lakkala, MIT2, aristocrat

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Roberts et al 11510386 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 VERIZON KUMAR, ANIL N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Telesco 11763556 - (D) WIEDER 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2843 Ex Parte HSIEH et al 12831255 - (D) WILSON 102(e) McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP CHANG, JOSEPH

2881 Ex Parte Wohlgemuth et al 12017820 - (D) BEST 102/103 Tucker Ellis LLP Brainlab AG IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

2882 Ex Parte MUENSTER et al 12906437 - (D) HASTINGS 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(b) Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. ARTMAN, THOMAS R

Additionally, we construe “an evaluation unit . . . that has software . . . configured to” perform various functions, as recited in independent claim 2, as a “means-plus-function” limitation subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, and conclude that the Specification’s failure to disclose an algorithm corresponding to the recited functions renders the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (see, e.g., Ex parte Lakkala, 2013 WL 1341108, *2 (PTAB 2013) (informative), where the PTAB held that “a processor . . . configured . . .to” perform various functions is a means-plus-function limitation). Likewise claim 1’s “carrying out a material detection” step is construed as “step-plus-function” limitation, and is similarly indefinite.

This limitation does not include the word “means,” thus a rebuttable presumption exists that this limitation is not a means-plus-function limitation. Mass. Inst. of Tech. & Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2006). This presumption can be overcome, however, if the limitation “fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) That is the case here. ...

In light of this conclusion, we next consider whether Appellants’ written description contains corresponding structure for the “evaluation unit” limitation. Cf. Aristocrat Techs Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In computer-implemented inventions such as
the one at issue, the corresponding structure must include an “algorithm that transforms [a] general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.” Id. at 1338 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted.)

Aristocrat Technologies Australia PTY Ltd. v. International Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 2181

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Spera et al 11553546 - (D) POLLOCK 102(e)/102/103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago Baxter LEE, WENG WAH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Rovinski et al 12233021 - (D) MILLS dissenting-in-part JENKS 103 103 SIM & MCBURNEY PARAS JR, PETER

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Fukui et al 10363039 - (D) NAGUMO 103 KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK WALLS, CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Kozlov et al 11830791 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FAN, SHIOW-JY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Chung et al 11767820 - (D) HANLON 102/103 ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP THOMAS, KIMBERLY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Deal et al 10902492 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BGL/Cook - Chicago HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

3763 Ex Parte Van Den Bossche et al 13575028 - (D) CHERRY 103 Symbus Law Group, LLC SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

3768 Ex Parte Goodwin 11012573 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 Pabst Patent Group LLP BOR, HELENE CATHERINE

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte KAMPER et al 12212149 - (D) OWENS 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 John A. O'Toole WILLIAMS, LELA

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Lin 11680193 - (D) SMITH 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC PENG, HUAWEN A

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
1205 Ex parte APP PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appellant Ex Parte 5670524 et al 08/256,319 90011068 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 112(2)/102/103 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: NAVINTA LLC CAMPELL, BRUCE R original HENLEY III, RAYMOND J

Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 Ex parte APP PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appellant Ex Parte 5,834,489 et al 08/851,062 90011069 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP PATENT OWNER: DLA PIPER LLP (US) THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ROTHWELL. FIGG. ERNST & MANBECK. P.C. CAMPELL, BRUCE R original HENLEY III, RAYMOND J

1636 Ex parte THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION Appellant Ex Parte 6,114,148 C1 et al 08/717,294 90012334 - (D) JENKS 102 CLARK & ELBING LLP PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original SHUMAN, JON D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 PG DRIVES TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester v. LAUTZENHISER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6,426,600 et al 09/802,823 95001471 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 Valenti, Hanley & Robinson, PLLC Third Party Requester: PG Drives Technology, Inc. WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original IP, SHIK LUEN PAUL

sensonics, myers, jacoby, gorman

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Poikselka 10880982 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Epstien et al 10429230 - (D) FETTING 103 Edell Shapiro & Finnan LLC PATS, JUSTIN

3638 Ex Parte Behrens et al 12083167 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Cozen O'Connor BUCKLE JR, JAMES J

Thus, on the record before us, it appears that the Examiner drew upon hindsight knowledge of
the claimed invention, and “use[d] the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(citations omitted). Accordingly, we must reverse the Examiner’s rejections.

REMANDED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Karpf et al 11645067 - (D) PER CURIAM 102(e) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP KUDDUS, DANIEL A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Simmons et al 11522395 - (D) GREENHUT 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE

Patent specifications are written for those skilled in the art and, therefore, need not teach or point out in detail that which is wellknown in the art. In re Myers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969). In fact, the omission of that which is well-known is preferred. MPEP § 2164.08. Our inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) takes into account the fact that that which is old, well-known, or obvious is often left unstated. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962) (an artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose). For these reasons, it has been held that reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Gorman, In re, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 707.07(f) , 2145

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Dieffenderfer 11627705 - (D) HOMERE 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED BERNARD, DANIEL J

2184 Ex Parte Roy 12031412 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 Oblon, Spivak/Broadcom Corporation MAMO, ELIAS

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Bhakta et al 11613214 - (D) BUI 103 IBM CORPORATION SHAHEED, KHALID W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Dassanayake et al 13172435 - (D) HASTINGS 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. NEILS, PEGGY A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Edgett et al 10843790 - (D) WORTH 102(e)/103 IPASS INC. (DeLizio Gilliam) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC HAYES, JOHN W

3682 Ex Parte Nicholas et al 11134116 - (D) FETTING 101/103 CARDINAL LAW GROUP DURAN, ARTHUR D

kunzmann, kollman, lebounty, dwight & lloyd

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Wakade et al 12359391 - (D) SMITH 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP ZHU, WEIPING

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Fouquet et al 12059979 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Avago Technologies Limited CHAN, TSZFUNG JACKIE

2884 Ex Parte Petrick et al 12274220 - (D) OWENS 102/103 GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC BRYANT, MICHAEL C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Agarwal et al 11890957 - (D) FETTING 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/Yahoo! HENRY, RODNEY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Uecker et al 12040183 - (D) MURPHY 103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) JENNISON, BRIAN W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Inaba et al 12288538 - (D) SMITH 103 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT HERNANDEZ-DIAZ, JOSE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Pekarsky 12302673 - (D) OWENS 103 103 DIEDERIKS & WHITELAW, PLC LEE, SHUN K

Moreover, even if an element which Maglich desires to detect can have the same decay rate as an interfering element, the Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that Maglich uses energy line strength ratios of at least one interfering elements’ induced gamma rays to calculate an amount of induced gamma rays emitted by the at least one interfering element at an energy line of interest associated with at least one element of interest (final rejection mailed Nov. 25, 2011, pp. 2-3, 5). Hence, we accept that finding as fact. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte Kang et al 12427689 - (D) SMITH 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP TRINH, THANH TRUC

1765 Ex Parte Jacobine et al 11772843 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Henkel Corporation SERGENT, RABON A

1782 Ex Parte Beckwith et al 11845944 - (D) HOUSEL 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP KASHNIKOW, ERIK

“Synergism, in and of itself, is not conclusive of unobviousness in that synergism might be expected.” In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 55, n.6 (CCPA 1979).

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Huang et al 11880302 - (D) KUMAR 103/ obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RIZK, SAMIR WADIE

2184 Ex Parte Ronkainen et al 10816694 - (D) FISHMAN 102(e)/103 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP PARK, ILWOO

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Kawai 11703174 - (D) BEAMER 112(2)/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP MENDOZA, JUNIOR O

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Jones 11119379 - (D) SAADAT 102(e)/103 Christopher Croft Jones ARMAND, MARC ANTHONY

See also LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Com’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (in quoting with approval from Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. Greenawalt, 27 F.2d 823, 828 (2d Cir. 1928)):

The use for which the [anticipatory] apparatus was intended is irrelevant, if it could be employed without change for the purposes of the patent; the statute authorizes the patenting of machines, not of their uses.

LaBounty Mfg. Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 22 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2004 ,   2133.03 ,   2133.03(e) ,   2133.03(e)(2)

2893 Ex Parte Luk et al 12542796 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP SCHOENHOLTZ, JOSEPH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3675 Ex Parte Debrody et al 12239869 - (D) MOORE 102/103 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO MERLINO, ALYSON MARIE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Schaeffer et al 10984417 - (D) FREDMAN 103/ obviousness-type double patenting BGL/Cook - Chicago HUGHES, SAMUEL T

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11849148 - (R) KIM 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN DANNEMAN, PAUL

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 SYNQOR, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant v. MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. Requester and Respondent Ex Parte 7558083 et al 11/900,207 95001405 - (D) PERRY 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. For THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER MURATA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD c/o KEATING & BENNETT, LLP HEYMAN, JOHN S original NGUYEN, MATTHEW VAN

2875 Ex parte YLX LTD. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7,547,114 B2 et al 11/830,311 90011694 - (R) DANG 102/103 Chen Yoshimura LLP Third Party Requester: Adli Law Group P.C. GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original CRANSON JR, JAMES W

perricone, minton, hoffer, griffin

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Ahlem et al 11551195 - (D) FREDMAN 103 HARBOR THERAPEUTICS, INC. PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

Although not clearly stated, the Examiner may alternatively be relying upon a theory of inherency. However, the treatment of HIV does not inherently result in the treatment of a mycobacterium infection.In Perricone, the Federal Circuit distinguished between the topical application of a lotion to skin generally to prevent sunburn, and the topical application of a lotion to treat sunburned skin, finding that the “issue is not . . . whether [the prior art] lotion if applied to skin sunburn would inherently treat that damage, but whether Pereira discloses the application of its composition to skin sunburn. It does not.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Reinschke et al 10591089 - (D) DELMENDO 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ANDREWS, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte KUBLER et al 11764815 - (D) LORIN 103 King & Spalding LLP FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

3662 Ex Parte Munch 11580771 - (D) MURPHY 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. TO, TUAN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 12251173 - (D) FREDMAN 102(e)/103 Pabst Patent Group LLP SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Ritt et al 10843492 - (D) EVANS 102(e) 101 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN MCNALLY, MICHAEL S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Diaz et al 12391821 - (D) TIMM 103 103 Haynes and Boone, LLP LI, MEIYA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Caveney et al 11179762 - (D) STEPHENS 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Perman & Green, LLP LOWE, MICHAEL S

“A whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “However, when the ‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the Federal Circuit held that the Board did not err in giving limiting effect to the “wherein” clauses in an interference because the wherein clauses “relate back to and clarify what is required by the count.” The court was not persuaded by the arguments that the wherein clauses in that case “merely state the inherent result of performing the manipulative steps.” Id. at 1034. 

Minton, Hoffer, and Griffin establish that each claim reciting a “wherein” or “whereby” clause must be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the clause is entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. 

Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2106 , 2111.04 , 2133.03(c)

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.04

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103 , 2111.04

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11346750 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 Kagan Binder, PLLC DORNA, CARRIE R

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Hind et al 12204597 - (D) TROCK 112(2) 102(e) CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG WALDRON, SCOTT A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Khalid et al 11409586 - (D) COURTENAY 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP TO, BAOTRAN N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Jeong et al 11714060 - (D) COURTENAY 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. MCKIE, GINA M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Karpov et al 12082181 - (D) WILSON 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. BYRNE, HARRY W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 NALCO COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. VOSTEEN CONSULTING GmbH Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Vosteen et al 90/011,604 6,878,358 B 10/430,088 95001587 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(2) 112(1)/112(4)/102/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. Third Party Requester: Reed Smith, LLP XU, LING X original STRICKLAND, JONAS N

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Requester Cross-Appellant and Respondent v. ILLUMINA, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent Ex Parte 7232656 et al 10/610,305 95000528 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1) 102/103 COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP Third Party Requester: LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original WHISENANT, ETHAN C