ICON

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte TOBITA et al 13455808 - (D) FINK 102 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LAM, TUAN THIEU

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Kane 12633064 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 102/103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. MACASIANO, MARILYN G

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Takagi et al 12604858 - (D) WILSON 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. MORILLO, JANELL COMBS

It is well established that "the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (emphasis added).

ICON, clay

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte CHATEL 11945834 - (D) ABRAHAM 112(1)/103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP LATHAM, SAEEDA MONEE

For a reference to be “reasonably pertinent,” it must “logically [] have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). 

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08 (2141.01(a)(I))

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Christenson 11874264 - (D) CRAWFORD 102/103 IBM CORPORATION DESAI, MARGISHI V

2491 Ex Parte Venkatsubra et al 11334658 - (D) ASTORINO 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C. GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2865 Ex Parte Jung et al 11245492 - (D) SAADAT 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HENSON, MISCHITA L

2872 Ex Parte Knittel et al 11974789 - (D) WILSON 103 Jack Schwartz & Associates, PLLC CHWASZ, JADE R

2872 Ex Parte Kingston et al 12243343 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated WILKES, ZACHARY W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Batot et al 11523200 - (D) CRAWFORD 102/103 IBM CORPORATION ANDERSON, FOLASHADE

3684 Ex Parte Hesselink 12853239 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(2)/103 WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION CIVAN, ETHAN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Vogel et al 11412482 - (D) BAHR 103 FLETCHER YODER MAYE, AYUB A

3745 Ex Parte Borgen 10599109 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 Abel IP AS EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 12245083 - (D) BUI 102/103 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC LANIER, BENJAMIN E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Beletski et al 11949290 - (D) BAHR 102 112(1)/102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. AMIN, BHAVESH V

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1758 Ex Parte Cousins et al 12233819 - (D) GARRIS 103 SunPower/ BSTZ Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP MERSHON, JAYNE L

1778 Ex Parte Mei et al 12839136 - (D) BEST 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. KURTZ, BENJAMIN M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte George et al 11519178 - (D) STRAUSS 102 GEORGE MADATHILPARAMBIL GEORGE ELMORE, REBA I

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Jung et al 10844564 - (D) SAADAT 112(1)/112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC SURVILLO, OLEG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Ma et al 10803225 - (D) OWENS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FREEMAN, SHEMA TAIAN

REHEARING

DENIED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Grosset et al 11609531 - (D) FETTING 103 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. LIN, SHEW FEN

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3614 Ex parte BEACON NAVIGATION, GMBH Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 5819201 et al 08/713,625 90012382 - (D) EVANS 102/103 LEE & HAYES, PLLC LIE, ANGELA M original LOUIS JACQUES, JACQUES H

ICON

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Bezek 11/608,215 ABRAMS 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

In order for a reference to be reasonably pertinent to the problem, it must "logically have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2668 Ex Parte Yuan 11/478,710 STRAUSS 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HOWISON & ARNOTT, L.L.P DESIRE, GREGORY M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Atkin et al 11/089,393 SHIANG 103 Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC RUIZ, ANGELICA

2159 Ex Parte Biazetti et al 11/430,709 SHIANG 102/103 IBM RSW /TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP MOSER, BRUCE M

2178 Ex Parte Heinkel et al 11/670,492 FREDMAN 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. LUDWIG, MATTHEW J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2617 SYBASE 365, INC. Requester v. INTERCARRIER COMMUNICATIONS LLC Real Party In Interest and Appellant 95/001,222 7,430,425 11/516,593 WEINBERG 102 Flachsbart & Greenspoon THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC CRAVER, CHARLES R original GELIN, JEAN ALLAND

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 ATICO INTERNATIONAL USA, INC. Requester v. TOFASCO OF AMERICA, INC. Patent Owner 95/000,031 6,296,304 09/507,253 COCKS 314 broadening/103 overcome IP POWER HOLDINGS LIMITED THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WILEY REIN & FIELDING LLP original DAVID AND RAYMOND PATENT FIRM GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original NELSON JR, MILTON

GRANTED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 MEDTRONIC, INC. Requester v. NUVASIVE, INC. Patent Owner 95/001,247 7,582,058 10/608,362 COCKS dissenting SONG 314 broadening overcome FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (TC) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO original NuVasive, Inc. c/o CPA Global FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original PHILOGENE, PEDRO

ICON, morris

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

3652 Ex Parte Jonsson 10502017 - (D) FLOYD 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Mark P. Stone TIGHE, BRENDAN P

AFFIRMED 

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2871 Ex Parte Bluem et al 11468737 - (D) BUI 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY ARENDT, PAISLEY L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3721 Ex Parte Simm et al 11497895 - (D) McCARTHY 103 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY SMITH, SCOTT A

Interpreting this recitation as broadly as the ordinary usage of the language and the disclosure of the Specification allow, see In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc, 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), the term “having” does not limit the term “shell element” to an element including first and second shell element portions and nothing more.

icon HARMON 4: 198; 6: 422
DONNER 2: 82-94; 8: 216-38, 299-310; 926-47; 1799-1820; 10: 78-90

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 904.01, 2111,2111.01, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

ICON, paulsen

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Angermeier et al 11137082 - (D) KATZ 103 SABIC Innovative Plastics LISTVOYB, GREGORY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Erlanger et al 11404330 - (D) WINSOR 103 Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC REYES, MARIELA D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Shelton et al 11652164 - (D) SPAHN 112(2)/103 K&L Gates LLP LOPEZ, MICHELLE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Tardi et al 10294474 - (D) WALSH 102/103 103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

1629 Ex Parte Ueno 11110698 - (D) PRATS 103 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC FAY, ZOHREH A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Xu et al 11696772 - (D) BENOIT 103 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP MAI, TIEN HUNG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Rasmussen et al 11829010 - (D) FREDMAN 103 102/103 Becton, Dickinson and Company (Kirton & McConkie) SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

In Icon the court found that:

an inventor considering a hinge and latch mechanism for portable computers would naturally look to references employing other "housings, hinges, latches, springs, etc.," which in that case came from areas such as "a desktop telephone directory, a piano lid, a kitchen cabinet, a washing machine cabinet, a wooden furniture cabinet, or a two-part housing for storing audio cassettes." citing Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1481-82.

In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F. 3d 1374, 1380 (Fed Cir 2007)

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Swaniker 11700063 - (D) PAK 103 Covidien SCOTT, ANGELA C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Sundaram 11161459 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 LAW FIRM OF NAREN THAPPETA C/O LANDON IP, INC. COONEY, ADAM A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Niemenmaa et al 11341026 - (D) ARPIN 103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C.
WANG-HURST, KATHY W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Hori et al 10600571 - (D) CAPP Dissenting SPAHN 103 KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK TRAN, DIEM T

orthopedic, etter, rembrandt, invitrogen, ICON

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Tamura 10/540,816 GRIMES 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC EXAMINER MATTISON, LORI K

1644 Ex Parte Plouet et al 10/530,893 SCHEINER 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER HADDAD, MAHER M

1657 Ex Parte Burkinshaw et al 11/181,677 WALSH 112(1)/103(a) O'KEEFE, EGAN, PETERMAN & ENDERS LLP EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J

“There is a distinction between trying to physically combine the two separate apparatus disclosed in two prior art references on the one hand, and on the other hand trying to learn enough from the disclosures of the two references to render obvious the claims in suit. . . . Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of references, even if the features of one reference cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other reference. Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted); see also, In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859-60 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc) (“the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole”) (citations omitted).

Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . 716.04
Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . 2242, 2258, 2279, 2286, 2642, 2686.04

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Mayer et al 11/229,840 WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1727 Ex Parte Hayashi et al 10/576,421 KRATZ 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ROE, CLAIRE LOUISE

1742 Ex Parte Meerman et al 10/500,713 KRATZ 112(1)/132 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER WOLLSCHLAGER, JEFFREY MICHAEL

1761 Ex Parte Fernholz et al 11/257,874 HANLON 103(a) ECOLAB USA INC. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1782 Ex Parte Morris 11/098,228 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S

1784 Ex Parte Laird et al 11/898,557 WARREN 102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER XU, LING X

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Cheshire et al 10/877,414 HUGHES 102(b) PVF -- APPLE INC. c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU N

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Sweeney et al 11/385,903 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB EXAMINER LE, KAREN L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Bodlaender 10/502,153 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Philips Electornics North America Corporation EXAMINER UHLIR, CHRISTOPHER J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Mansfield Jr. 10/501,141 CRAWFORD 103(a) NEIFELD IP LAW, PC EXAMINER STAMBER, ERIC W

3674 Ex Parte Burdick et al 11/539,216 McCARTHY 103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, VISHAL A

3689 Ex Parte Heimke et al 10/984,634 CRAWFORD 112(1)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Hoang 10/908,165 McCARTHY 102(b) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER ROST, ANDREW J

3753 Ex Parte Palin et al 11/536,696 PATE III 103(a) Carlson, Gaskey, & Olds, P.C./Sikorsky EXAMINER BASTIANELLI, JOHN

3761 Ex Parte Bobroff et al 10/798,060 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) HAEMONETICS CORPORATION EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Choo et al 11/449,745 WARREN 103(a) 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Levy 10/602,549 POTHIER 102(e) 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) DIGIMARC CORPORATION EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

However, reciting both an apparatus and the method of using the apparatus renders a claim indefinite under § 112, second paragraph. See Rembrandt Data Tech., L.P. v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

2171 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/484,646 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Kasriel et al 10/128,598 RUGGIERO 102(e) 102(e) NORTH OAKS PATENT AGENCY EXAMINER NANO, SARGON N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Alkemper et al 11/096,406 CRAWFORD 101/102(b) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER TROTTER, SCOTT S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Vattes et al 11/143,232 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2662 Ex Parte 6985494 et al J2 GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Third Party Requestor, Respondent v. BEAR CREEK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,030 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: MIELE LAW GROUP, PC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER MARCELO, MELVIN C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2818 Ex Parte 6933608 et al Ex parte KAIJO CORPORATION Appellant 90/007,861, 90/008,629 and 90/010,340 BOALICK 305/112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: SNELL & WILMER, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: SoCAL IP LAW GROUP, LLP EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER TRAN, MAI HUONG C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3657 Ex Parte 7559414 B2 et al SHIMANO INC. Requester and Respondent v. SCRAM LLC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,309 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) Third Party Requester: DELAND LAW OFFICE Patent Owner: SWANSON & BRATSCHUN, L.L.C. EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original EXAMINER WILLIAMS, THOMAS J

The closest support we can find for Shimano’s position is the doctrine of “prosecution disclaimer” or “prosecution history estoppel” where statements made by a Patent Owner during prosecution of the patent can limit the scope of the claim, once issued in a patent. Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories Inc., 429 F3d 1052, 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, during reexamination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as they would be understood in the context of the specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d at 1379. The estoppel or disclaimer doctrine does not operate in the same way during reexamination proceedings.

Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories, Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 77 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2138.04
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Panchev et al 10/496,322 GREEN 112(1)/103(a) Vladimir Panchev Marieta Pancheva Adelina Suvandjieva EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V

1635 Ex Parte Roberts et al 09/972,245 SCHEINER 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Cho et al 11/077,995 KRATZ 103(a) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP. EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1744 Ex Parte Monk et al 11/726,964 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) JON M. DICKINSON, P.C. EXAMINER LEE, EDMUND H

1765 Ex Parte Maziers 10/512,388 HANLON 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER LU, C CAIXIA

1774 Ex Parte Smith 11/495,406 SMITH 103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER SORKIN, DAVID L

1786 Ex Parte Elschner et al 10/910,042 SMITH 102(b) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER THOMPSON, CAMIE S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Hoover et al 10/155,723 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Melillo 10/836,814 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP EXAMINER SAUNDERS JR, JOSEPH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Lee 12/000,576 COURTENAY 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER WILSON, ALLAN R

2818 Ex Parte FUKURO et al 11/533,370 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/102(b) RABIN & Berdo, PC EXAMINER TAYLOR, EARL N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Gerberding 10/063,937 McCARTHY 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

3761 Ex Parte Steger et al 11/118,893 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

tanaka, wyers, ICON

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Nahas 11/249,814 SMITH 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER MERKLING, MATTHEW J

1761 Ex Parte Shendy et al 11/099,075 SMITH 103(a) CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A

1764 Ex Parte Liaw et al 11/905,940 SMITH 103(a) Joe McKinney Muncy EXAMINER
HUHN, RICHARD A

1786 Ex Parte Zafiroglu et al 11/364,912 FRANKLIN 103(a) INVISTA NORTH AMERICA S.A.R.L. EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Fontoura et al 10/152,251 DROESCH 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER AVELLINO, JOSEPH E
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Baur et al 11/194,333 McCOLLUM 103(a) Henkel Corporation EXAMINER
GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Paulson et al 11/051,125 SMITH 103(a) Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. EXAMINER MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL

1763 Ex Parte Roby 10/533,041 FRANKLIN 103(a) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L

1783 Ex Parte Kia et al 10/639,306 SMITH 103(a) Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER SAMPLE, DAVID R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/787,479 DIXON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER
HILLERY, NATHAN
REHEARING

DENIED-IN-PART, GRANTED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1753 Ex Parte 6033542 et al 90/007,824 11/430,299 08/574,693 Ex parte Kobelco Research Institute, Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant ROBERTSON 102/251 FOR PATENT OWNER: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Gregory S. Rosenblatt Wiggin and Dana, LLP EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN original EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

Thus, because In re Tanaka holds that the addition of dependent claims as a hedge against possible invalidity is within a reasonable interpretation of the reissue statute, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 251. Id., at 1251-1252.

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1762 Ex Parte 6709694 et al 95/000,390 09/890,690 SIRONA DENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. Requester v. 3M ESPE AG Patent Owner 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DELMENDO 103(a) PATENT OWNER: PAMELA L. STEWARD, ESQ. 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DORTHY P. WHELAN, ESQ. FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C., P.A. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JOHN D. CARPENTER, ESQ. CHRISTIE PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER MICHENER, JENNIFER KOLB

Sirona’s reliance on cases such as Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) is misplaced. Those cases involved simple mechanical inventions in which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the element in dispute (e.g., the gas spring designed to stably retain a structure in the vertical position as in ICON Health) would serve the same or similar function in either the invention or the prior art.

case, ICON

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Spormann et al 11/218,386 McCOLLUM 103(a) STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY LICENSING BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER MEAH, MOHAMMAD Y 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Harai 10/561,503 HASTINGS 102(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES EXAMINER NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L 

Ex Parte Huttlin 10/823,926 GARRIS 112(2)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE 

Ex Parte Kaye et al 10/877,771 NAGUMO 103(a) BEYER LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER CONLEY, OI K 

The Examiner’s reliance on Supreme Court precedent to establish obviousness is misplaced because, as our reviewing court pointed out, "[p]recedent cannot establish facts." Case v. CPC Int’l, Inc. , 730 F.2d 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 

Case v. CPC Int’l Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 221 USPQ 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . 2301.03 

Ex Parte Komatsu et al 10/830,449 KIMLIN 103(a) MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANN 

Ex Parte Manning et al 10/341,375 NAGUMO 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Van Den Berg et al 10/571,814 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Mitra et al 11/251,664 HOMERE 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER WHITMORE, STACY 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Flinner et al 10/989,809 O’NEILL 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER JIANG, CHEN WEN 

REEXAMINATION 

AFFIRMED 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte RPM SOLUTIONS, INC. Patent US 6,659,375 90/007,333 SONG 102(b)/103(a) cc: CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD. cc Third Party Requester: Edward J. Kondracki MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A 

see also In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“During reexamination, as with original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.”).