REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Zojaji et al 11/242,613 SMITH 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Hinnebusch 10/015,866 KIM 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN
3643 Ex Parte Aandewiel et al 11/600,598 ASTORINO 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J
3663 Ex Parte Greatbatch 10/998,188 PATE III 112(1)/101/103(a) WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER MONDT, JOHANNES P
3682 Ex Parte Pudar 09/870,377 McCARTHY 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER MYHRE, JAMES W
3686 Ex Parte Diakides et al 11/222,947 KIM 103(a) NICHOLAS A. DIAKIDES EXAMINER
RAJ, RAJIV J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Ehrnsperger et al 11/251,311 PATE III 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916), which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.01
Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Steinmetz et al 11/010,842 STEPHENS 103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, TANH Q
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Medendorp 10/644,354 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE
3688 Ex Parte Hoffberg et al 11/467,915 PETRAVICK 103(a) 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 Ostrolenk Faber LLP EXAMINER CHAMPAGNE, DONALD
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Sutherland et al 11/039,531 PATE III 103(a) EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO EXAMINER RICCI, JOHN A
As an initial matter we note that our reviewing court’s predecessor has stated that the order in which prior art is applied in a rejection is not significant. See, for example, In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, (CCPA 1961) ("[i]n a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be a matter of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.")
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Zojaji et al 11/242,613 SMITH 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Hinnebusch 10/015,866 KIM 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN
3643 Ex Parte Aandewiel et al 11/600,598 ASTORINO 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J
3663 Ex Parte Greatbatch 10/998,188 PATE III 112(1)/101/103(a) WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER MONDT, JOHANNES P
3682 Ex Parte Pudar 09/870,377 McCARTHY 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER MYHRE, JAMES W
3686 Ex Parte Diakides et al 11/222,947 KIM 103(a) NICHOLAS A. DIAKIDES EXAMINER
RAJ, RAJIV J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Ehrnsperger et al 11/251,311 PATE III 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916), which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.01
Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Steinmetz et al 11/010,842 STEPHENS 103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, TANH Q
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Medendorp 10/644,354 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE
3688 Ex Parte Hoffberg et al 11/467,915 PETRAVICK 103(a) 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 Ostrolenk Faber LLP EXAMINER CHAMPAGNE, DONALD
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Sutherland et al 11/039,531 PATE III 103(a) EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO EXAMINER RICCI, JOHN A
As an initial matter we note that our reviewing court’s predecessor has stated that the order in which prior art is applied in a rejection is not significant. See, for example, In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, (CCPA 1961) ("[i]n a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be a matter of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.")
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte Tantivy Communications, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner TESCO CORPORATION
95/001,113 7,048,050 SONG 102/103(a) For Patent Owner: MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP For Third Party Requester : BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLPEXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 90/008,990 6,151,332 TURNER 103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER LAROSE, COLIN M
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Sigler et al 11/155,180 SMITH Concurring PAK 102(b)/103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER LAM, CATHY FONG FONG
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Whaley 11/127,049 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) Docket Clerk Dallas TX EXAMINER DANG, KHANH
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Mastin Crosbie et al 09/793,355 MacDONALD 102(e) Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle EXAMINER OSMAN, RAMY M
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Medendorp 11/708,818 DROESCH 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER CROWE, DAVID R
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Howell 11/634,454 HORNER 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH
3739 Ex Parte Prabhu et al 09/891,773 BAHR 102(e) Carestream Health, Inc. EXAMINER COHEN, LEE S
3748 Ex Parte Lifson 11/544,403 HORNER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TRIEU, THERESA
3774 Ex Parte Fariabi 10/750,079 HOELTER 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B
3774 Ex Parte Trese et al 11/234,518 DELMENDO 101/112(1)/103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B
“A claimed invention having an inoperable or impossible claim limitation may lack utility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and certainly lacks an enabling disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112.” EMI Group North America, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “When a claim itself recites incorrect science in one limitation, the entire claim is invalid, regardless of the combinations of the other limitations recited in the claim.” EMI, 268 F.3d at 1349.
Raytheon v. Roper, 724 F.2d 951, 220 USPQ 592 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . .2107.02, 2164.08
REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/429,507 GRIMES Technology Advancement Labs LLC EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY
NEW
REVERSED
3684 Ex Parte Foy et al 11/226,463 DESHPANDE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R
1765 Ex Parte Hulse et al 11/955,475 ROBERTSON 103(a) HONEYWELL/FOX ROTHSCHILD EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M
1645 Ex Parte Miller 10/470,797 MILLS 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER TONGUE, LAKIA J
3691 Ex Parte Mitchell et al 10/169,501 CRAWFORD 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER ONYEZIA, CHUKS N
3685 Ex Parte Raley et al 10/388,162 FISCHETTI 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER KIM, STEVEN S
3624 Ex Parte Santos et al 10/378,872 MOHANTY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L
1621 Ex Parte STAUFFER 12/632,840 ADAMS 103(a) YOUNG BASILE EXAMINER PARSA, JAFAR F
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2114 Ex Parte JOHANSSON et al 11/834,731 POTHIER 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER CHU, GABRIEL L
3749 Ex Parte Schnell et al 10/413,018 BROWN 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER PRICE, CARL D
2453 Ex Parte Wilson et al 11/455,037 DROESCH 102(e)/103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T
AFFIRMED
2442 Ex Parte Beisiegel et al 10/489,051 MacDONALD 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NICKERSON, JEFFREY L
2183 Ex Parte Dieffenderfer et al 11/363,072 DANG 102(e)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S
2442 Ex Parte Beisiegel et al 10/489,051 MacDONALD 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NICKERSON, JEFFREY L
2183 Ex Parte Dieffenderfer et al 11/363,072 DANG 102(e)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S
2178 Ex Parte Lu et al 10/668,399 BARRY 103(a) IBM CORP (AP) EXAMINER QUELER, ADAM M
3632 Ex Parte MATIAS 11/735,523 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PERRY + CURRIER INC. EXAMINER KING, ANITA M
2166 Ex Parte Raley et al 11/141,229 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER TANG, JIEYING
2156 Ex Parte Recio et al 11/304,954 KOHUT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE
3774 Ex Parte Reed et al 11/252,169 HORNER 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H
3715 Ex Parte Seelig et al 09/791,463 BROWN 102(e) IAN F. BURNS & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER MOSSER, KATHLEEN MICHELE
3644 Ex Parte Simoni 11/039,210 STAICOVICI 103(a) JACQUELYN R. SIMONI EXAMINER ABBOTT, YVONNE RENEE
3667 Ex Parte Turgeon 10/086,793 LORIN 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG
REHEARING
DENIED
2448 Ex Parte Traversat et al 10/055,645 KRIVAK 103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER LUU, LE HIEN
