allen eng'g, boehringer, IMS, Jung, Kinetic, storage tech.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Eisenhut et al 11294332 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC OCHYLSKI, RYAN M

1766 Ex Parte Heeney et al 12094895 - (D) SMITH 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. KAHN, RACHEL

1777 Ex Parte Beatty 11197960 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FRITCHMAN, REBECCA M

1779 Ex Parte Gaid 12088501 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC ANDERSON, DENISE R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Abuzaina et al 12147046 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3636 Ex parte Lear Corporation, Patent Owner and Appellant 90011745 6955397 10/950,711 ROBERTSON 103 LEAR CORPORATION BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original BROWN, PETER R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Geng 10728393 - (D) DANG 102 102/103 Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy PETERSON, CHRISTOPHER K

That is, such “being configured to” language merely represents a statement of intended use of the light projector. An intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
...

Although claim 73 claims a “3D imaging camera” in the preamble, “[w]hether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is ‘determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.’” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held generally that “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).

Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2133.03(e), 2133.03(e)(4)

We do not find that the body of the claim depends on the preamble for completeness; since the preamble does not provide more than just “a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, we find that the preamble has no separate limiting effect.

IMS Technology Inc. v. Haas Automation Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 54 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2181, 2183, 2184

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2873 Ex Parte Matsuzawa et al 10152930 - (D) HOFF 103 103 CIBA VISION CORPORATION STULTZ, JESSICA T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Caldwell et al 11115968 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 EPA - Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Tran Quoc et al 11573162 - (D) SCHAFER 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP LOUIE, MANDY C

1744 Ex Parte Curdy et al 10574003 - (D) SMITH 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC LE, NINH V

1745 Ex Parte Giacometti 10552360 - (D) SMITH 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1746 Ex Parte Bauer 11805444 - (D) SMITH 103 Avery Dennison Corporation DODDS, SCOTT

1762 Ex Parte Ung et al 11094102 - (D) KATZ 103 Mintz Levin/Palo Alto HARLAN, ROBERT D

1765 Ex Parte Wei et al 12708368 - (D) PRAISS 103/obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MCGINTY, DOUGLAS J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Kottapalli 11638315 - (D) BENOIT 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP HUISMAN, DAVID J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Lim et al 10419984 - (D) DANG 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

2686 Ex Parte Karr et al 11265629 - (D) FRAHM 103 SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. KLIMOWICZ, WILLIAM JOSEPH

To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, so as to meet the notice required of 35 USC § 132, requires (1) “set[ting] forth the statutory basis of the rejection”; (2) “the reference or references relied upon”; and (3) explaining the references “in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, there must be (4) “a reason to combine prior art references[, which] is a question of fact.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Carrison 10793694 - (D) JENKS 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

IMS

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte GODDARD et al 11/923,403 FRANKLIN 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER XU, XIAOYUN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Brill10/600,797 HOFF 102(a)/103(a) LEE & HAYES, PLLC EXAMINER HICKS, MICHAEL J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Wilson 09/731,019 FETTING 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Abrams et al 11/028,808 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) Richard A. Arrett VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

3735 Ex Parte Laermer et al 11/639,052 FRANKLIN 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER TOTH, KAREN E

3772 Ex Parte Paschal et al 10/139,513 GREENHUT 103(a) OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH AND MATERIEL COMMAND ATTN: MCMR-JA (MS. ELIZABETH ARWINE) EXAMINER BROWN, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Marolia et al 10/879,869 DANG 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER VU, TUAN A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Shima 10/491,338 KRIVAK 102(b) 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER BARQADLE, YASIN M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Thompson 11/052,071 CALVE 112(2) 102(b)/103(a) ROBERT A. VANDERHYE EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

See IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F. 3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The phrase "control apparatus" in the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention. Its use does not limit the claims, as Haas contends, to a control apparatus that is separate from the machine tool. The claim is infringed by any apparatus encompassing all of the limitations in the body of the claim.)

IMS Technology Inc. v. Haas Automation Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 54 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .2181, 2183, 2184

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Kasule 11/315,535 TIMM 112(2)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WONG, EDNA

1774 Ex Parte Dirkse et al 10/559,309 PER CURIAM 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER LEUNG, JENNIFER A

1775 Ex Parte Oresti et al 10/594,592 PER CURIAM 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SHUMATE, ANTHONY R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte DeLorme et al 10/777,869 THOMAS 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER KIM, PAUL

2173 Ex Parte Kracht 10/963,352 JEFFERY 103(a) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2467 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/999,703 SAADAT 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER MAIS, MARK A

2472 Ex Parte Acharya et al 10/853,422 DILLON 112(2)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER CHRISS, ANDREW W

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Reisinger et al 09/994,197 SAADAT 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER KIM, KEVIN

2625 Ex Parte Haines 09/738,795 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAM, THIERRY L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Anderson et al 10/686,425 FETTING 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (NY) EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Schlienger et al 11/409,398 PRATS 102(e)/103(a) Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP EXAMINER COTRONEO, STEVEN J

3738 Ex Parte Girton 10/858,589 WALSH 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. Richard A. Arrett EXAMINER MILLER, CHERYL L

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1714 Ex Parte 7279018 et al 90/010,549 10/655,798 ROBERTSON 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER LOPEZ, CARLOS N original EXAMINER TOOMER, CEPHIA D

storage tech., allen eng'g, catalina, pitney bowes, symantec, IMS, american medical

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Squibbs et al 11/035,801 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Schrader et al 10/967,022 KAUFFMAN 103(a) 103(a) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M

Whether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is “determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed.Cir. 2003). While there is no simple test for determining when a preamble limits claim scope, we have set forth some general principles to guide that inquiry. “Generally,” we have said, “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, the preamble may be construed as limiting “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002), quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A preamble is not regarded as limiting, however, “when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Catalina, 289 F.3d at 809. If the preamble “is reasonably susceptible to being construed to be merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of the claim (and was not clearly added to overcome a [prior art] rejection), we do not construe it to be a separate limitation.” Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288-89 (Fed. Cir. 2008). We have held that the preamble has no separate limiting effect if, for example, “the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434-35 (Fed.Cir. 2000).

Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . 2133.03(e), 2133.03(e)(4)

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . 2111.02

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . .2111.02

IMS Technology Inc. v. Haas Automation Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 54 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .2181, 2183, 2184
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Dijk et al 11/699,692 McKELVEY 103(a) KRATON POLYMERS U.S. LLC EXAMINER KAUCHER, MARK S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Chane et al 10/306,752 POTHIER 102(e)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD EXAMINER AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES Concurring BLANKENSHIP 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e)/103(a) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N