Jung, gechter, stepan

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2687 Ex Parte Skillman et al 11830203 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (QCA) MURPHY, JEROLD B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Zhang et al 12386775 - (D) OWENS 102 Docket Clerk - SAMS O TOOLE, COLLEEN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Goetz 12682923 - (D) GREENHUT 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A EDWARDS, PHILIP CHARLES

A rejection must be set forth in sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of § 132, such as by identifying where or how each limitation of the rejected claims is met by the prior art references. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 37 C.F.R. § l . 104(c)(2) ("When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified."), Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (PTO must create a record that includes "specific fact findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory explanations for such findings."). It is neither our place, nor Appellant's burden, to speculate as to the basis for rejecting claims. In re Stepan, 660 F. 3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (It is the PTO's obligation to provide prior notice to the applicant of all matters of fact and law asserted prior to an appeal hearing before the Board.).

Jung, In re, 637 F.3d 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 1205.02 1504.01(c)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3762 Ex Parte Moffitt et al 12630633 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 102 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC D ABREU, MICHAEL JOSEPH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1643 Ex Parte Zhao et al 10335056 - (D) HARLOW 103 ANTICANCER, INC BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte SETO 12892537 - (D) KENNEDY 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP DIGNAN, MICHAEL L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Campagna et al 12050575 - (D) PINKERTON 103 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. TAYLOR, JOSHUA D

2468 Ex Parte Garudadri et al 11129635 - (D) KENNY 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED PHUNG, LUAT

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte YACH 13438373 - (D) HAGY 103 PERRY + CURRIER INC. (BlackBerry) LAI, DANIEL

2648 Ex Parte Huang et al 12361741 - (D) MacDONALD 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL TALUKDER, MD K

2695 Ex Parte Dassanayake et al 12605705 - (D) HAGY 103 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD KIYABU, KARIN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Duvalsaint et al 12388797 - (D) OWENS 103 Keohane & D'Alessandro GRANT, ROBERT J

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Zheng et al 11615457 - (D) OWENS 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP BADR, HAMID R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Itani et al 12062506 - (D) JIVANI 102/103 CRGO LAW NGUYEN, MAIKHANH

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex parte SILGAN PLASTICS LLC Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 6,095,359 et al 09/405,614 90013044 - (D) SONG 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. For Third Party: MOLD-MASTERS (2007) LIMITED LEWIS, AARON J original CRONIN, STEPHEN K

kronig, Jung

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2115 Ex Parte Read et al 12987423 - (D) BAER 102/double patenting MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP CAO, CHUN

We disagree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings in the Examiner’s Answer are a new ground of rejection because the Examiner does not change the basic thrust of the rejection. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (holding that additional explanation responding to arguments offered for the first time “did not change the rejection, and [Appellant] had fair opportunity to respond”).

Kronig, In re, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) 1207.03

Jung, In re, 637 F.3d 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 1205.02

kronig, Jung, noznick, krammes, cowles

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Burns et al 11998673 - (D) GARRIS 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP ANDERSON, JERRY W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kummer et al 11693024 - (D) CURCURI 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (EchoStar) MONTOYA, OSCHTA I

2463 Ex Parte Wu et al 12166619 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Hirth 11166464 - (D) EVANS 103 Dilworth IP - SAP ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN

The Board need not use identical language to that of the Examiner to avoid triggering a new ground of rejection. It is not a new ground of rejection, for example, to provide additional explanation or to restate the reasoning of the rejection in a different way, so long as the “basic thrust of the rejection” is the same. In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976); In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (concluding the Board’s additional explanation “did not change the rejection”). See also In re Noznick, 391 F.2d 946, 949 (CCPA 1968) (concluding the Board did not make a new ground of rejection when “explaining to appellants why their arguments were ineffective to overcome the rejection made by the examiner”); In re Krammes, 314 F.2d 813, 817 (CCPA 1963) (“It is well established that mere difference in form of expression of the reasons for finding claims unpatentable or unobvious over the references does not amount to reliance on a different ground of rejection” (internal citations omitted)); In re Cowles, 156 F.2d 551, 555 (CCPA 1946) (holding that the use of “different language” does not necessarily trigger a new ground of rejection).

Jung, In re, 637 F.3d 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 1205.02

Kronig, In re, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) 1207.03

Noznick, In re, 478 F.2d 1260, 178 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1973) 716.03(b)

Jung, chester, jung

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Maguire 12731554 - (D) WARREN 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL LAIOS, MARIA J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Haruna et al 12418383 - (D) GUIJT 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. JOSHI, SURAJ M

The Examiner’s notice requirement “is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).

Jung, In re, 637 F.3d 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 1205.02

2482 Ex Parte Kitahara et al 10586235 - (D) SAADAT 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. KIM, HEE-YONG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Julian 11020342 - (D) DIXON 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED PATEL, DHAVAL V

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Lownds et al 11354928 - (D) PLENZLER 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC WEBER, JONATHAN C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Albin 12948167 - (D) OWENS 103 103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP STEIN, MICHELLE

1782 Ex Parte Pokusa et al 12435768 - (D) OWENS 103 103 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP LAN, YAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Sung et al 11603856 - (D) DIXON 102 102 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. GUADALUPE CRUZ, AIXA AMYR

See In re Jung, 637 F3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A]ll that is required of the office to meet its prima facie burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of § 132.”).

Jung, In re, 637 F.3d 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 1205.02

2492 Ex Parte Shinde et al 11606225 - (D) SAADAT 103 102/103 Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford & Brucculeri, LLP. C/O CPA Global MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Carlucci 12154018 - (D) PINKERTON 103 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP COLAN, GIOVANNA B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Lesk et al 10725857 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 112(1) 103 FELDMAN GALE, P.A. GEHMAN, BRYON P

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte KONSTI et al 12617852 - (D) DELMENDO 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY CHANG, VICTOR S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Cowham et al 11590142 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FORMAN, JAMES Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Wagoner 11740518 - (D) DIXON 103 LEE & HAYES, PLLC PERROMAT, CARLOS

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Vorderbruck et al 11571557 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 102/103 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP SMITH, JASON C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Mason 11977985 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 102/103 VINCENT L. CARNEY LAW OFFICE SELF, SHELLEY M

3744 Ex Parte Howe et al 11017614 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 BSH Home Appliances Corporation COMINGS, DANIEL C

vitronics, best, crown operations, Jung, hyatt, schreiber

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Davidai 11454720 - (D) GREEN 103 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION CHONG, YONG SOO

1648 Ex Parte Doranz et al 10901399 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 Pepper/Integral Molecular, Inc. LUCAS, ZACHARIAH

1651 Ex Parte Morozov et al 11419593 - (D) FREDMAN 103 GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DAVIS, RUTH A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Fryer et al 11441767 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. CHU, JOHN S Y

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Atkins 11536556 - (D) DILLON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RIES, LAURIE ANNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Barnett 11516600 - (D) FLOYD 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA LLP (PWC) EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT

3764 Ex Parte Grind 12317586 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 Precor Incorporated Amer Sports North America THANH, LOAN H

3767 Ex Parte McFerran 10667056 - (D) GREEN 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC GRAY, PHILLIP A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Chu 10933702 - (D) POTHIER 103 103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) TABOR, AMARE F

2444 Ex Parte Jennings et al 11049808 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 103 SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P.C. RICHARDSON, THOMAS W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Norin et al 11593711 - (D) McKONE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. SOROWAR, GOLAM

2677 Ex Parte Laksono 11285643 - (D) McKONE 103 103 VIXS Systems, Inc. c/o Davidson Sheehan LLP MCDOWELL, JR, MAURICE L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Xu 12039913 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102/103 103 Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP ENAD, CHRISTINE A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Cieslik et al 11628727 - (D) SPAHN 103 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION WALBERG, TERESA J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Yadav et al 10898849 - (D) GARRIS 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P

1741 Ex Parte Pinkham et al 11805373 - (D) METZ 103 Johns Manville LAZORCIK, JASON L

1782 Ex Parte Lovett et al 10588710 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Monro 11255090 - (D) HUGHES 102 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. JACOB, AJITH

2171 Ex Parte Torres et al 11304947 - (D) DILLON 102/103 IBM END IPLAW (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC NUNEZ, JORDANY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2446 Ex Parte Vellanki et al 10818227 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NGUYEN, DUSTIN

2448 Ex Parte Gonen et al 10941790 - (D) BENOIT 103 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. BUI, JONATHAN A

2456 Ex Parte Mamas 10492095 - (D) BOUCHER 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BARQADLE, YASIN M

Although technical treatises and dictionaries fall within the category of extrinsic evidence, as they do not form a part of an integrated patent document, they are worthy of special note. Judges are free to consult such resources at any time in order to better understand the underlying technology and may also rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2111.01

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Holtschneider 10929829 - (D) WINSOR 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON CASCA, FRED A

2675 Ex Parte Walmsley et al 11176372 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Memjet c/o Cooley LLP HON, MING Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Miyaji et al 11772537 - (D) COURTENAY 102 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC KIM, JOHN K

The Examiner has the burden of providing reasonable proof that a claim limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (C.C.P.A. 1977); see also Crown Operations Int'l, LTD v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Examiner meets this "burden of production by `adequately explaining the shortcomings it perceives so that the applicant is properly notified and able to respond.'" In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Hyatt v. Dudas,492 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The burden of proof then shifts to the applicant "to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on." Best, 562 F.2d at 1254-55; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency).

In re MOUSA, 479 Fed. Appx. 348, 352 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (unpublished) 

Best, In re, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) 2112, 2112.01, 2112.02, 2114

Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2163.04

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02, 2112, 2114

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte White 11213603 - (D) McCARTHY 103 CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE DONDERO, WILLIAM E  

FEDERAL CIRCUIT  

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 NOVO NORDISK INC. AND NOVO NORDISK A/S, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PADDOCK LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1031 6,677,358 09/459,526 PROST inequitable conduct 103 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Latham & Watkins LLP SPIVACK, PHYLLIS G

1614 NOVO NORDISK A/S AND NOVO NORDISK INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES, LTD. AND SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendants-Appellees. 2011-1223 6,677,358 09/459,526 PROST inequitable conduct 103 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Winston & Strawn LLP SPIVACK, PHYLLIS G

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

o'farrell, wiseman, jung, abele, cybersource

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Rao et al 11/170,331 ZECHER 103(a) WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER TRUONG, LOAN

2161 Ex Parte Agrawal et al 11/317,216 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) The Danamraj Law Group, PC/RIM EXAMINER MINCEY, JERMAINE A

2186 Ex Parte Dunshea et al 11/006,127 BARRY 102(b) Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Michaud et al 10/856,534 HORNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) Winston & Strawn LLP EXAMINER PANG, ROGER L

3689 Ex Parte Kruk et al 10/279,188 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Tak et al 10/837,390 HORNER 103(a) PEACOCK MYERS, P.C. EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Imamatsu 10/705,437 CHEN 102(a) 102(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER YAARY, MICHAEL D
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte McSwiggen et al 10/720,448 FREDMAN 103(a) MERCK EXAMINER BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON

O’Farrell states that “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988). O’Farrell identifies two kinds of error. In some cases, what would have been “obvious to try” would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful…. In others, what was “obvious to try” was to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
1633 Ex Parte Subramaniam et al 11/449,125 WALSH 103(a) STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA

There is no dispute that the difference in starting material shape dictates the resulting nanoparticle shape. In the Wiseman case, the discovery of a new function did not render Wiseman’s disc brakes nonobvious, and the inherent difference in shape here is similarly insufficient. “[Appellants] are, in effect, arguing that a structure suggested by the prior art, and, hence, potentially in the possession of the public, is patentable to them because it also possesses an Inherent, but hitherto unknown, function which they claim to have discovered. This is not the law. A patent on such a structure would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art.” In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1023 (CCPA 1979).

Wiseman, In re, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) 2141.02, 2145, 2164.06(c)

1647 Ex Parte Champion et al 11/078,735 FREDMAN 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER WOODWARD, CHERIE MICHELLE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Cetel et al 11/284,612 TIMM 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER AUSTIN, AARON

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Murray 11/092,866 HOMERE 103(a) TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER EXAMINER QUELER, ADAM M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Karamchedu et al 10/635,184 COURTENAY 103(a) Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Jung argues that the Board gave improper deference to the examiner’s rejection by requiring Jung to ‘identif[y] a reversible error’ by the examiner, which improperly shifted the burden of proving patentability onto Jung. Decision at 11. This is a hollow argument, because, as discussed above, the examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation and the burden was properly shifted to Jung to rebut it. . . . ‘[R]eversible error’ means that the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong . . . .”).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Gillaspy et al 10/947,417 HOELTER 101/103(a) Keohane & D'Alessandro EXAMINER CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

Our reviewing court in In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982) held that a claim directed to the steps of calculating and displaying was not statutory stating that “[t]his claim presents no more than the calculation of a number and display of the result, albeit in a particular format” (Id. at 908-09). Appellants’ claim 1 does not even include the displaying step recited in Abele’s rejected claim. See also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decision Inc., 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[t]he mere collection and organization of data regarding credit card numbers and Internet addresses is insufficient to meet the transformation prong of the test” and that “mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’”)

Abele, In re, 684 F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2106.01, 2184
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Lingle et al 10/453,790 GUEST Concurring WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

Jung, hyatt, frye, PPG, herz, de lajarte, hoffman, schreiber, ludtke, hallman

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/702,607 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chalupsky et al 10/656,652 DANG 102(e)/103(a) Caven & Aghevli LLC c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WHIPPLE, BRIAN P
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brady et al 10/217,795 KRIVAK 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - JW EXAMINER TRAN, QUOC DUC
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2163 Ex parte NETAPP, INC. 90/009,129 7,174,352 EASTHOM 112(2)/305/102(b) PATENT OWNER CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER RONALD L. YIN DLA PIPER US LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER LE, UYEN T

By failing to "articulate what gaps, in fact exist" between Gait and these claims, Appellant fails to show error, when as here, the Examiner put Appellant on notice as to how the claims were being treated. See In re Jung, No. 2011-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 * 4, 5 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2011). In Jung, the appellant at least alleged a gap existed, "but chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this difference." Id. at * 7. The failure to allege such a gap exists constitutes an effective waiver. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.")

Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . 2163.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Bamba et al 10/182,908 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER VERA AFREMOVA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Guthrie 10/816,403 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) M. P. Williams EXAMINER

WALKER, KEITH D

1761 Ex Parte Yang et al 10/951,849 KRATZ 103(a) ARKEMA INC. EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A

Concerning the first issue and the claim term “consisting essentially of”, it is well settled that the term “consisting essentially of” is interpreted as allowing for the inclusion not only of those ingredients specifically recited, but also those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of a claimed invention. PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52 (CCPA 1976). However, the burden is on Appellants to show what the basic and novel characteristics are and how they would be materially changed by the ingredient of the reference sought to be excluded from inclusion by Appellants’ use of this term. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74 (CCPA 1964); Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (BPAI 1989).

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . .2111.03, 2163

Herz, In re, 537 F.2d 549, 190 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Hoffman, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1061 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03
1767 Ex Parte Haider et al 11/315,639 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

1789 Ex Parte De Haan et al 10/380,883 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

Choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk: Where there is reason to conclude that the structure of the prior art is inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

Ludtke, In re, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112.01
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Zilavy 10/984,478 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J