king, ngai, gulack

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte MALCOLM 12040047 - (D) KHAN 102 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP KABIR, MOHAMMAD H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2489 Ex Parte Yang et al 11140833 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation PHILIPPE, GIMS S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Tava et al 12578405 - (D) GEIER 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP TO, TUAN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte LOVELESS et al 11833986 - (D) HORNER 103 INDEL, INC. VAN, QUANG T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Cherney et al 12262721 - (D) CAPP 103 103 DEERE & COMPANY PHAN, THIEM D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Moore et al 11849507 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Edell Shapiro & Finnan, LLC PATEL, DHAIRYA A

The rationale underlying the "printed matter" cases has been extended to the analysis of patentability of method claims.  King Pharms. Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1278-79 (Fed, Cir. 2010) (applying the "printed matter" reasoning to method claims containing an "informing" step that could be either printed or verbal instructions).  In this case, the relevant inquiry is whether the recitation that the event statement conforms to the structure, " was seen to with ," as opposed to some other format structire, has a "new and unobvious functional relationship" with the method.  Id. at 1279.

There is no objective evidence of record that there is a functional relationship between the format structure of the event statement and the claimed method.  Indeed, the only mention in claim 1 of the event statement is in the final "wherein clause", i.e., "wherein the generated metadata is converted to an event."

Regardless of the format of the event statement, the underlying method recited in claim 1 is the same.  The specific format structure of the event statement does not depend on the method, and the method does not depend on the format of the structure of the event statement.  As such, it constitutes non-functional descriptive material that may not be relied on for patentability.  See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2112.01

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2112.01

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Howard 11716493 - (D) BAHR 103 PRAXAIR, INC. PETTITT, JOHN F

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Lubbers et al 11771980 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Hall Estill Attorneys at Law (Seagate - MKM) RIGOL, YAIMA