CyberSource, CLS, Dealertrack, Fort Properties

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Kao et al 11354477 - (D) HOMERE 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW LEE, JASON T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Cummins 11482594 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 101/112(2) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101/112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BOSWELL, BETH V

We find that the recitation of an article to be nominal and that claim 14 is not “truly drawn to a specific computer readable medium, rather than to the underlying method” (CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374-75 (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317 (Fed Cir. 2012).

CyberSource HARMON 2: 2, 3, 6, 13-15

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Weinstein et al 11430108 - (D) BUI 102(b)/103 W. EDWARD RAMAGE UNG, LANNY N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2851 Ex Parte Fu et al 11841509 - (D) GAUDETTE 101/102(b)/103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. LIN, ARIC

2861 Ex Parte Simons 11802506 - (D) HASTINGS 102(b)/103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP GOLDBERG, BRIAN J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Szczygiel-Durante 12157943 - (D) McCOLLUM 102(b) IRVING KESCHNER NGUYEN, TRINH T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Landy et al 11218896 - (D) HOSKINS 103 MORRIS I. POLLACK MCCALISTER, WILLIAM M

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 STAPLES, INCORPORATED Requester and Cross-Appellant v. CONSUMERS INTERSTATE CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant 95001612 6,895,389 09/656,330 CURCURI 102(e)/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. CHOI, WOO H original SMITH, JEFFREY A

hyatt3, fiers, morse, CLS, swanson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Feldman et al 11922952 - (D) GRIMES 112(1)/112(2)/103 DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Bhasker et al 10888265 - (D) MacDONALD 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Baker Botts LLP LEWIS, CHERYL RENEA

The scope of claim 10 encompasses any and all (present and future) processing instructions for directing a computer to perform the claimed steps. Yet, Appellants’ Specification discloses at most only those processing instructions known to the inventor. Our reviewing court has concluded that such all-encompassing claims do not comply with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.

Because the count at issue purports to cover all DNAs that code for <>–IF, it is also analogous to a single means claim, which has been held not to comply with the first paragraph of section 112. See In re Hyatt, 708 F. 2d 712, [714] (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“the enabling disclosure of the specification [must] be commensurate in scope with the claim under consideration.”) Claiming all DNA’s that achieve a result without defining what means will do so is not in compliance with the description requirement; it is an attempt to preempt the future before it has arrived.

Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(emphasis added).

The proper statutory basis for the rejection of a single means claim is the requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 that the enabling disclosure of the specification be commensurate in scope with the claim under consideration.

The long-recognized problem with a single means claim is that it covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated result, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. See O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 112, 14 L.Ed. 601 (1853).

In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(footnotes omitted).

We note that claims in the standard Beauregard-type computer program product means-plus-function format avoid this enablement problem.

The final paragraph of § 112 saves combination claims drafted using means-plus-function format from this problem by providing a construction of that format narrow enough to avoid the problem of undue breadth as forbidden by the first paragraph. But no provision saves a claim drafted in means-plus-function format which is not drawn to a combination, i.e., a single means claim. 

Hyatt, 708 F.2d at 715.

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Jörgens et al 10572274 - (D) SCHEINER 103 SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP WASHINGTON, JAMARES

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Lang 10591897 - (D) McKONE 112(2)/103 MICHAEL J. STRIKER WEST, JEFFREY R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Costello et al 12186084 - (D) BROWN 103 FAY SHARPE LLP PUROL, DAVID M

3689 Ex Parte Haebig et al 10880795 - (D) PETRAVICK 112(2)/103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC NGUYEN, TAN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Weaver et al 10409308 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY BROWN, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Bowman 11840282 - (D) HOUSEL 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

1746 Ex Parte Krispin et al 11528929 - (D) DELMENDO 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP AFTERGUT, JEFFRY H

1765 Ex Parte Tsutsui et al 12173372 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LISTVOYB, GREGORY

1767 Ex Parte Licht et al 12065036 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

1787 Ex Parte Paiva et al 11576951 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY AHMED, SHEEBA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Bhatia 11088700 - (D) CURCURI 103 Baker Botts LLP LE, HUNG D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Amir et al 10569212 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 NAOMI ASSIA AHMED, MASUD

VACATED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte McLeod et al 11998988 - (D) GRIMES 102/112(2) 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 112(b) USMRMC-OSJA MS. ELIZABETH ARWINE, ESQ. BASKAR, PADMAVATHI

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Mabey et al 11654486 - (R) DELMENDO 103/double patenting CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY STANLEY, JANE L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Gustavson et al 11035933 - (D) MACDONALD 101 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC MALZAHN, DAVID H

Appellants’ first contention that the Board has erred is based on several points.

1) That the holding in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., ___ F.3d ____, 2013 WL 1920941, No. 2011-1301 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2013) requires the Board’s decision to “identify the fundamental concept (i.e., abstract idea) [ ] at risk of preemption.” (Rehearing Request 4).

2) That the Board’s rejection fails to “articulate the fundamental concept that allegedly is wrapped up in the claimed invention and at risk of preemption” as required by CLS. (Rehearing Request 1).

First, contrary to Appellants’ allegation, the holding in CLS v. Alice does not require the Board’s Decision to identify the fundamental concept or in fact to do anything else. Rather, as Chief Judge Rader points out “nothing said today beyond our judgment has the weight of precedent.” CLS, ___ F.3d at ____n.1, 2013 WL 1920941 at *20 n.1 (Rader, Chief Judge concurring-in-part dissenting-in-part).

Second, although Appellants are misguided in relying on CLS, we note that any rejection must begin “by determining what, precisely, the applicant has invented and is seeking to patent, and how the claims relate to and define that invention. (MPEP § 2103 I; 8th Ed., Rev. 9).” (Decision 16). The Board does precisely this at pages 22-25 of their Decision.

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 90011763 7,840,678 WEINBERG 102 Novak Druce + Quigg LLP 2nd Reexam Group THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP STEELMAN, MARY J original WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

In reexaminations, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, not the conclusive burden of proof Appellant posits. In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also 37 CFR § 1.555(b) referring to the preponderance of the evidence, burden of proof standard.

exxon research, CLS, bell atlantic, jones2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1623 Ex Parte Edelman et al 11440529 - (D) GRIMES 103 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP BLAND, LAYLA D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Kashyap 11404640 - (D) BENOIT 103 LAW OFFICES (San Jose) YU, XIANG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Rathonyi et al 11675881 - (D) BENOIT 102 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC HTUN, SAN A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Rouen 10711820 - (D) RICE 103 SCHLUMBERGER ROSHARON CAMPUS ANDREWS, DAVID L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Chuter 11825473 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK SHIPMON, TIFFANY P

3748 Ex Parte Handler et al 11517865 - (D) DANIELS 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Grilliot et al 11247061 - (D) CURCURI 103 103 HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS EASON, MATTHEW A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Agostinelli 10476139 - (D) BOUCHER 103 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB CAVALLARI, DANIEL J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Stones et al 10889764 - (D) SCANLON 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 112(1) Black & Decker Corporation DEXTER,CLARK F

See Exxon Rsrch and Eng’g Co. v. U.S., 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds.”).
HARMON 1: 211, 238; 5: 230, 241, 247
DONNER 10: 23, 24, 26

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Lesschaeve et al 12278179 - (D) KATZ 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. KENNEDY, TIMOTHY J

1773 Ex Parte Williamson et al 11618987 - (D) HASTINGS 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP LEVKOVICH, NATALIA A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Kim 11935029 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Stanzione & Kim, LLP YANCHUS III, PAULB

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Vosseler 10318210 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DAFTUAR, SAKET K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Negro et al 11113542 - (D) POTHIER 103 Gesmer Updegrove LLP HAGAN, SEAN P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Helmersson et al 10586032 - (D) SAINDON 103 MICHAUD-Kinney Group LLP O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P

3661 Ex Parte Duddles et al 11348713 - (D) BUNTING 103 Reising, Ethington, Barnes, Kisselle, P.C. NOLAN, PETER D  

REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Andritz INC. Appellant 90010403 5753075 08/738,239 LEBOVITZ 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC Third Party Requester: FASTH LAW OFFICES (ROLF FASTH) JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE original LEAVITT, STEVEN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., AND ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HULU, LLC, Defendant, AND WILDTANGENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2010-1544 7,346,545 09/867,181 RADER Concurring LOURIE 101 Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman LLP; Latham & Watkins, LLP original MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP POND, ROBERT M

First, it will be rare that a patent infringement suit can be dismissed at the pleading stage for lack of patentable subject matter. This is so because every issued patent is presumed to have been issued properly, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See, e.g., CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 1920941, *33 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2013) (Chief Judge Rader, and Judges Linn, Moore, and O’Malley, concluding that “any attack on an issued patent based on a challenge to the eligibility of the subject matter must be proven by clear and convincing evidence,” and Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, and Wallach, concluding that a statutory presumption of validity applies when § 101 is raised as a basis for invalidity in district court proceedings.). Further, if Rule 12(b)(6) is used to assert an affirmative defense, dismissal is appropriate only if the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, suffice to establish the defense. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007). Thus, the only plausible reading of the patent must be that there is clear and convincing evidence of ineligibility. For those reasons, Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for lack of eligible subject matter will be the exception, not the rule.

mouttet, CLS, mayo

custom search

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Kando et al 11681353 - (D) HOUSEL 103 BURR & BROWN ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Khaliq et al 10953112 - (D) ELLURU 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP CHEUNG, HUBERT G

2167 Ex Parte Cannon et al 11091790 - (D) BARRY 103 ADVANTEDGE LAW GROUP, LLC BADAWI, SHERIEF

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Maclnnis 11270999 - (D) HOFF 102/103 TKHR (Broadcom) YENKE, BRIAN P

2432 Ex Parte Jordan et al 10279346 - (D) WINSOR 112(2)/102/103 AT&T Legal Department - PIP Law LLC LANIER, BENJAMIN E

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Lindoff et al 10830387 - (D) HUGHES 103 POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS

2612 Ex Parte Gleitman 11072795 - (D) KRIVAK 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. WONG, ALBERT KANG

2617 Ex Parte Rigge 10672656 - (D) MacDONALD 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP DOAN, KIET M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Britz et al 11708087 - (D) JUNG 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB LOPEZ, MICHELLE

3733 Ex Parte Trieu et al 11413785 - (D) JENKS concurring and dissenting FREDMAN 102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (Spinal) PHILOGENE, PEDRO

3734 Ex Parte Tsugita 10621972 - (D) JENKS 112(1)/103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC BLATT, ERIC D

3761 Ex Parte Popp et al 11305182 - (D) KERINS 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3767 Ex Parte Bierman et al 11295903 - (D) MARTIN 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

3769 Ex Parte Lee et al 10167681 - (D) SPAHN 112(1)/112(2)/103 WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION C/O BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C SHAY, DAVID M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2472 Ex Parte Babiarz et al 10799704 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 103 HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP JAIN, RAJ K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Norrid 09963716 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 103 IBM CORPORATION (RHF) C/O ROBERT H. FRANTZ KARMIS, STEFANOS

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Cripps et al 11419642 - (D) CALVE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP FRISTOE JR, JOHN K

These arguments are largely speculative and not persuasive because a determination of obviousness does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements or a showing that the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of a primary reference or physically combined with another reference. In re Mouttet, 2012 WL 2384056, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 26, 2012) (citations omitted).

3761 Ex Parte Collins et al 11444847 - (D) SCHEINER 102/103 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. KIDWELL, MICHELE M

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Lu 11272448 - (D) KIMLIN 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1731 Ex Parte Zuyev et al 11557805 - (D) PRAISS 112(2)/102 MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS INC.-Quartz c/o DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP WIESE, NOAH S

1734 Ex Parte Hoppe et al 10581778 - (D) KATZ Concurring GARRIS 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LEE, REBECCA Y

1746 Ex Parte Rohde et al 10520536 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 DILWORTH IP, LLC GOFF II, JOHN L

1764 Ex Parte Moszner et al 11585280 - (D) PRAISS 103 Ivoclar Vivadent Inc. REDDY, KARUNA P

1771 Ex Parte Boffa 11435698 - (D) OBERMANN 103/double patenting M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC VASISTH, VISHAL V

1774 Ex Parte Stevens et al 10006876 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. DUONG, THANH P

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Aipperspach et al 11845829 - (D) MOORE 112(1)/102 IBM CORPORATION (ROC) KERVEROS, DEMETRIOS C

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Ieperen 09966733 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Gage 10763289 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED HUYNH, NAM TRUNG

2626 Ex Parte Burns et al 09863996 - (D) DANG 102/103 KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP VO, HUYEN X

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Garfinkle et al 10147669 - (D) HORNER 112(2)/103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC DAVIS, CASSANDRA HOPE

3645 Ex Parte Herwanger et al 11180956 - (D) SPAHN 103 WesternGeco L.L.C. ALSOMIRI, ISAM A

3676 Ex Parte Rickman et al 11482601 - (D) HORNER 103 ROBERT A. KENT DITRANI, ANGELA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Stad et al 11861551 - (D) BONILLA 112(1)/103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP SCHNEIDER, LYNNSY M

3739 Ex Parte Francischelli et al 10752135 - (D) SAINDON 103 Medtronic CardioVascular PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte WIMBERGER-FRIEDL et al 11576279 - (R) GAUDETTE 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS GERIDO, DWAN A

GRANTED
2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Braun 10670902 - (D) BARRY Concurring COURTENAY 103 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b) 112(2) Basch & Nickerson LLP DHINGRA, PAWANDEEP

And because human color perception is a subjective mental process (abstract idea), the “single most reasonable understanding is that [Appellant’s] claim is directed to nothing more than a fundamental truth or disembodied concept,” i.e., subjective human color perception. See CLS Bank Int’l v Alice Corp. Pty, LTD, No. 2011-1301, 2012 WL 2708400, at *10 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2012). In light of the evolving state of §101 case law, the Examiner should review all claims for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101, consistent with current USPTO guidance regarding recent court decisions, including Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Keller et al 10498863 - (R) GARRIS 103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. DICUS, TAMRA