animal, santarus, inphi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Marvin et al 13808920 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS BERHANE, ADOLF D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Memmott et al 13495069 - (D) JESCHKE 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC DAVIS, SHARON M

3657 Ex Parte Reinke et al 13090872 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Walter Ottesen, P.A. MOMPER, ANNA M

3669 Ex Parte Aixala et al 13130712 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 WRB-IP LLP CASS, JEAN PAUL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Giuliani 11916066 - (D) BROWN 103 41.50 112(2) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC COMINGS, DANIEL C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte Joshi 13279174 - (D) WINSOR 103 112(1) Hewlett Packard Enterprise MORLAN, ROBERT M

We agree with the Examiner. The limitation “only” idle voice clients does not appear in the claims as originally filed, but rather was added during prosecution. Compare Spec. 5—6 (original claims), with Amendment after Final Rejection 2—5 (Jan. 26, 2015) (amended claims). The language at lines 2—3 of claim 28 recites “to send the transition management message only to voice clients that are idle and not to voice clients that are not idle” (Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added)). The ordinary meaning of “only,” which is consistent with claim 28, is “adverb ... 1 a : as a single fact or instance and nothing more or different. . . b : solely, exclusively.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 812 (10th ed. 1999). Sending a transition management message to “only” voice clients that are idle is sending the transition management message exclusively to idle voice clients, and not to voice clients that are not idle — a negative limitation.

It is well settled that negative limitations are permissible forms of expression to define the scope of a claimed invention. See generally Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 923 (Fed. Cir. 1991). But the mere absence of a positive recitation in the original disclosure is not basis to exclude the limitation. MPEP § 2173.05. Rather, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added). “The ‘reason’ required by Santarus is provided, for instance, by properly describing alternative features of the patented invention.” Inphi v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte SANTINATO et al 12886618 - (D) MEYERS 103 101 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte McCulloch et al 13252072 - (D) TOWNSEND 101/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY HARWARD, SOREN T

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Taniguchi et al 13616317 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP MALLOY, ANNA E

1768 Ex Parte BARNES et al 13937317 - (D) ROSS 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY FIGUEROA, JOHN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Sinnema et al 10559360 - (D) KERINS 112(2) 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DEXTER, CLARK F

3771 Ex Parte Fine et al 12541148 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP WOODWARD, VALERIE LYNN

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF LLC Requester, Respondent v. PPC BROADBAND, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8192237 et al 95/002,400 13/033,127 95002400 - (S) SONG 103 Barclay Damon, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC ANDUJAR, LEONARDO original CHAMBERS, TRAVIS SLOAN

packard, ariad, vas-cath, ralston

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 10573373 - (D) COTTA 103 Parker Highlander PLLC PARAD, DENNIS J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Abramov et al 13182029 - (D) NAGUMO 112(2)/103 CORNING INCORPORATED HOFFMANN, JOHN M

The Federal Circuit has explained that indefiniteness, as a subset of claim construction, is a question of law. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In particular, the court held, “[a]s the statutory language of ‘particular[ity]’ and ‘distinct[ness]’ indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms. It is the claims that notify the public of what is within the protections of the patent, and what is not.” Id.

Packard, In re, 751 F.3d 1307, 110 USPQ2d 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 2173.02 , 2173.05(a) , 2173.05(e) , 2173.06

1793 Ex Parte van Os et al 12364470 - (D) OWENS 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. TURNER, FELICIA C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Spakevicius et al 13318591 - (D) SHAW 103 41.50 103 Apple c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP SF TILLERY, RASHAWN N

2477 Ex Parte Aghili et al 12241256 - (D) BARRY 103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. ESMAEILIAN, MAJID

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2636 Ex Parte Azemati et al 13246779 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 Maschoff Brennan LAMBERT, DAVID W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte FERNANDO et al 12648903 - (D) ROSS 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA COLE, ELIZABETH M

1791 Ex Parte Gutknecht et al 13341563 - (D) KENNEDY 103 JAY BROWN LAW FIRM GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

2174 Ex Parte Kauranen 13575305 - (D) ENGLE 102/103 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Nokia Technologies Oy TSAI, JAMES T

2859 Ex Parte Seman et al 13587107 - (D) HASTINGS 103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION TORRES RUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3675 Ex Parte Kocurek 13493984 - (D) BROWNE 112(1)/103 103 FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION) PATEL, VISHAL A

The purpose of the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is to “‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.”’  Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id.  This test “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.”  Id.  “Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.”  Id.  This inquiry is a question of fact.  Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc)   2161 ,   2161.01 ,   2163 ,   2163.03 ,   2173.05(g) ,   2181

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991)  1504.20 ,   2152.02(b) ,   2161 ,   2161.01 ,   2163 ,  2163.02 ,  2164 ,  2181

Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 227 USPQ 177 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2163.02

3741 Ex Parte Li et al 13431400 - (D) HORNER 112(2) 102/103 BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC ALSTOM MEADE, LORNE EDWARD

3786 Ex Parte Feldman et al 13767350 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. DIETERLE, JENNIFER M

kao, kollman, cree

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Preisler et al 13762956 - (D) DENNETT 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DANIELS, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2482 Ex Parte AUGST 12725153 - (D) CRAIG 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Wepfer et al 13272524 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC LIN, KO-WEI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Leininger et al 12304535 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) PALENIK, JEFFREY T

1617 Ex Parte Woeller et al 13499861 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 41.50 103 Abel Law Group, LLP ZHANG, YANZHI

“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut that case.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011). When unexpected results are proffered by Appellants, Appellants must “provide [] an adequate basis to support the conclusion that other embodiments falling within the claim will behave in the same manner” in order to “establish that the evidence is commensurate with [the] scope of the claims.” Id. at 1068. One data point is insufficient to “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow [one having ordinary skill in the art] to reasonably extend the probative value thereof.” In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (Fed. Cir. 1979).

Kao, In re, 639 F.3d 1057, 98 USPQ2d 1799 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2111.05 , 2112.01 , 2153.02

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

1621 Ex Parte Huang et al 13989016 - (D) ADAMS 103 Parker Highlander PLLC MATOS NEGRON, TAINA DEL MAR

1653 Ex Parte Wang et al 13320585 - (D) FREDMAN 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP MARTIN, PAUL C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Noar 12865765 - (D) DENNETT 103 Acuity Law Group, P.C. PENNY, TABATHA L

1756 Ex Parte Berke et al 11734118 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BOWDITCH & DEWEY, LLP DINH, BACH T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Kuether et al 11931450 - (D) FISHMAN 103 AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP] ALAM, MUSHFIKH I

2492 Ex Parte Zhang 14494844 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP KORSAK, OLEG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Kristensson et al 13514440 - (D) CAPP 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LOUIS, LATOYA M

We think the Examiner has articulated adequate non-hindsight reasoning to sustain the rejection. Id. See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

thorpe, marosi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Formenti et al 13580437 - (D) SMITH 103 Silvia Salvadori, P.C. SOROUSH, LAYLA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2145 Ex Parte Moscatelli et al 11948806 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP / AI ORR, HENRY W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte FUKASAWA 13167247 - (D) NAGUMO concurring HOUSEL 103 Browdy and Neimark, PLLC SALERNO, SARAH KATE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kleinwaechter et al 13000241 - (D) SMITH 112(2)/102 112(2)/102/103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. FISHER, MELISSA L

We are not persuaded. It is well settled that “[t]he patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Moreover, “[wjhere a product-by-process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (affirming rejections under Sections 102 or 103).

Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 706.02(m) , 2113

1627 Ex Parte Katsikis et al 13418045 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 Saul Ewing LLP (Philadelphia) WANG, SHENGJUN

1675 Ex Parte McInnes et al 13851661 - (D) LaVIER 103/double patenting DORITY & MANNING, P.A. REYNOLDS, FRED H

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Boerrigter 11134507 - (D) GUPTA 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1764 Ex Parte KUEHN et al 13524059 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY c/o The Dow Chemical Company BROOKS, KREGGT

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Duarte et al 12200782 - (D) CHEN 103 Paradice and Li LLP/Qualcomm WONG, WILLIAM

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Kuether et al 11931450 - (D) FISHMAN 103 AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP] ALAM, MUSHFIKH I

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Schoen 13043424 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 101 Facebook/Fenwick SCHMUCKER, MICHAEL W

3643 Ex Parte Van Gemert et al 13123942 - (D) MELVIN 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON VALENTI, ANDREA M

general foods, vogel, eli lilly

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Wilkinson 11041758 - (D) BAHR 103 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS CONLEY, FREDRICK C

AFFIRMED
1786 Ex Parte Quinn et al 13970238 - (D) McGEE 103 Dodd Call Black, PLLC VINEIS, FRANK J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2459 Ex Parte Turk 11897182 - (D) HAGY 103 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Dhayagude et al 11942239 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI double patenting 103 Fish & Richardson PC / Atmel ABDIN, SHAHEDA A

We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection does not clearly explain or compare the instant claims with claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent. The key question in any obviousness double patenting analysis is: “Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent asserted as supporting double patenting?” General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970)). Answering this question requires that the decision-maker first construe the claims in the patent and the claims under review and determine the differences between them. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2001). After determining the differences, the decision-maker must determine whether the differences in subject matter render the claims patentably distinct.Id. Where the subject matter of a pending claim under review is an obvious variation of the subject matter of a patented claim, the pending claim is not patentably distinct. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 , 804.01 , 804.02 , 1504.06

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 , 2144.08 , 2165.01

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte McGuire 13096712 - (D) BARRY 103 THE GRIFFITH LAW FIRM, A P.C. WU, JERRY

“[T]hat two inventions were designed to resolve different problems ... is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

caveney

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Kosuru 13460072 - (D) HOWARD 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise ALLEN, BRITTANY N

See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence)

Caveney, In re, 761 F.2d 671, 226 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   2133.03(b)

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte SADAYUKI et al 13297551 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 McDermott Will and Emery LLP PELTON, NATHANIEL R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Aadal et al 13387094 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. EPPS -SMITH, JANET L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Baron et al 13436099 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 Bejin Bieneman PLC Ford Global Technologies, LLC CASILLAS, ROLAND J

2177 Ex Parte Pokala et al 11775617 - (D) BUI 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (Ca. Inc.) FABER, DAVID

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Daly 12491876 - (D) BUI 103 Seed IP Law Group LLP/EchoStar (290110) CORBO, NICHOLAS T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte MIYAZAKI 12755946 - (D) FENICK 103 41.50 103 Paratus Law Group, PLLC TAYLOR JR, DUANE N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Kneisl 11308515 - (D) HOELTER 103 SCHLUMBERGER ROSHARON CAMPUS PARSLEY, DAVID J

3654 Ex Parte Furukawa et al 12449447 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 GATES CORPORATION TRUONG, MINH D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Bouvier et al 13639434 - (D) CALVE 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL

zletz

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Mattisson et al 13503168 - (D) BAIN 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC TSVEY, GENNADIY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Huggett 10569969 - (D) WIEKER 103 MOORE & VAN AT .TEN PLLC BRADEN, SHAWN M

[T]he words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We agree with Appellant that an appropriate definition of “residual,” in the context of the claim language and in light of Appellant’s Specification, is “remaining.”

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 715 ,   2111 ,   2111.01 ,   2111.03 ,    2138 ,   2171 ,   2173.05(a) ,   2181 ,   2286 ,   2686.04

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1661 Ex Parte Colova 12461805 - (D) FREDMAN 112(2)/103 Smith & Hopen (private clients) PARA, ANNETTE H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte IMAI 12331944 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. BANTAMOI, ANTHONY

2471 Ex Parte QUIGLEY 13735930 - (D) SHIANG 112(2)/102 double patenting STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHOU, ALBERT T

2497 Ex Parte Stewart et al 14295636 - (D) HUME 103/double patenting FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ZARRINEH, SHAHRIAR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Skaaksrud et al 14445676 - (D) BEAMER 103 WITHERS & KEYS, LLC MCCORMACK, THOMAS S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte HEGNA et al 12806098 - (D) BROWNE 103 101 OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC HULKA, JAMES R

3691 Ex Parte Jenkins et al 13740368 - (D) McSHANE 102 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER HAMILTON, LALITA M

3695 Ex Parte Brittingham et al 12861658 - (D) SHAH 112(1)/112(2)/103 101 Docket Clerk-GOLD SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY

altiris

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Casteel et al 12277369 - (D) McMANUS 103 AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. MCDERMOTT, HELEN M

In determining whether a claimed method must be performed in a particular sequence, “[f]irst, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, they must be performed in the order written.”  Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 65 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2111.01

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Brown 13472246 - (D) LORIN 112(1)/103 41.50 101 Charles P. Brown RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte MIZUTA 13425780 - (D) HOMERE 102/double patenting 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. FLANDERS, ANDREW C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Gallyas et al 13002074 - (D) MILLS 103 Jason D. Voight CRUZ, KATHRIEN ANN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte HOCHGRAF et al 12187069 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103/double patenting MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION WANG, EUGENIA

1792 Ex Parte Propst 12995311 - (D) SNAY 103 POLSINELLI PLLC THAKUR, VIREN A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Cok et al 13074425 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP ZUBERI, MOHAMMED H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Danelski 13673376 - (D) STEPINA 103 Interfacial Solutions IP, LLC ANDERSON, DON M

kerkhoven

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Walton et al 12271836 - (D) DEJMEK 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED BOLOURCHI, NADER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte LI et al 13470432 - (D) JESCHKE 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC LAFLAME JR, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 Ex Parte Park et al 13756063 - (D) GRIMES 112(1) 112(1) Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing BUNNER, BRIDGET E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Cahn 13219239 - (D) KENNEDY 112(1)/112(2)/112(4)/103 103 MARSH, FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP KASTLER, SCOTT R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Sakai et al 11523803 - (D) FREDMAN 103 CLARK & ELBING LLP PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

“It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980).

Kerkhoven, In re, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) 2144.06

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Stopek et al 12486352 - (D) PESLAK 112(1) 102/103 Covidien LP OU, JING RUI

farrenkopf, orthopedic

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3675 Ex Parte Weinraub 12606416 - (D) BROWNE 103 LAW OFFICES OF LARRY K. ROBERTS, INC. FULTON, KRISTINA ROSE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Macinga et al 13377839 - (D) PRATS 112(2)/103 103 Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP BROWE, DAVID

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Masignani et al 13375759 - (D) FREDMAN 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP OGUNBIYI, OLUWATOSIN A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Kopchick et al 13609821 - (D) PRAISS 103 VIVACQUA LAW, PLLC HA, STEVEN S

See In re Farrenkopf 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“additional expense associated with the addition of inhibitors would not discourage one of ordinary skill in the art”); Orthopedic Equipment Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Farrenkopf, In re, 713 F.2d 714, 219 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2145

Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 716.04

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Bolz et al 12855602 - (D) FENICK 103 Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA TRAN, KIM THANH THI

2682 Ex Parte Subbian et al 12787524 - (D) FENICK 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH DORSEY, RENEE