vehicular, KCJ, harari, fessmann

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Adireddy et al 11528203 - (D) DILLON concurring JEFFERY 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. NGO, CHUONG A

“A drafter uses the term ‘comprising’ to mean ‘I claim at least what follows and potentially more.’”
Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2000). ...

It is well settled that the article “a” means “one or more” where, as here, the claim contains the transitional phrase, “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). But “[w]hen the claim language and specification indicate that ‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open-ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Angell et al 12121947 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. NAJARIAN, LENA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Shintani et al 12143057 - (D) STEPHENS 103 103 HOWSON & HOWSON LLP RIVERA, WILLIAM ARAUZ

“[T]he Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature than would be the case when a product is claimed in the more conventional fashion.” In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974).

Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974) 2113

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte COLLIVER et al 12322410 - (D) ROESEL 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP MCCLAIN-COLEMAN, TYNESHA L.

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Dessau 11430145 - (D) DANG additional info DANG 102/103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Ni et al 12017545 - (D) KINDER 103 Basch & Nickerson LLP SHAW, ROBERT A

2455 Ex Parte Ni et al 12017534 - (D) KINDER 103 Basch & Nickerson LLP SHAW, ROBERT A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2671 Ex Parte Rose 11567241 - (D) FREDMAN 102 GIBB & RILEY, LLC HUNTSINGER, PETER K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Kirsch 12619008 - (D) MURPHY 103 Covidien LP FIDEI, DAVID

KCJ, harari

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Matusch et al 10942297 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 ProPat, LLC PACKARD, BENJAMIN J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Hsu 10515372 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP WEBB, GREGORY E

1784 Ex Parte Starikov et al 11891429 - (D) OWENS 103 Cooke Law Firm KRUPICKA, ADAM C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Rhee et al 11342003 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN NGUYEN, THAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte RAGHUNATH et al 11622119 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 101 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. THIAW, CATHERINE B

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Ota et al 11718151 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. VAJDA, PETER L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Marquet et al 10846542 - (D) JEFFERY 103 KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. POWERS, WILLIAM S

Turning to claim 1, the claim recites, in pertinent part, that the interface device comprises a smart card connector to which plural smart card execution devices are connected. We emphasize the indefinite article “a” here, for it is well settled that it means “‘one or more’” where, as here, the claim contains the transitional phrase, “‘comprising.’” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To be sure, “[w]hen the claim language and specification indicate that ‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That exception is not the case here; nor have Appellants shown as
much on this record.

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP. and RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD. Requesters v. INNOVATIVE SONIC LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte RE40077 et al 11/247,003 95002157 - (D) JEFFERY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 103 Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C. For THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: OBLON, SPIVAK McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP CORSARO, NICK original LY, ANH VU H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 KOHLER CO. Requester and Appellant v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7230345 et al 11/033,579 95001558 - (D) WEINBERG 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original PONOMARENKO, NICHOLAS

scanner, KCJ

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Gschwind et al 11416421 - (D) SHIANG 103 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. HUISMAN, DAVID J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2848 Ex Parte Beaupre et al 12317361 - (D) DELMENDO 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY WU, JERRY

2898 Ex Parte Yee et al 12014578 - (D) HANLON 103 ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP CHOUDHRY, MOHAMMAD M

Scanner Tech. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp., N.V., 365 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2004), is instructive. The court explains:

“This court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’ Unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when the patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the article.” 

Id., at 1304 (quoting KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte MALLOY et al 11776708 - (D) DESHPANDE 102 102 Riverbed Technology Inc. - PVF c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP VO, CECILE H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Kindberg 11483043 - (D) KAISER 102 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MIKELS, MATTHEW

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Strock et al 11776082 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global MCNEIL, JENNIFER C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2497 Ex Parte Takata et al 11905433 - (D) KIM 103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP RASHID, HARUNUR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2682 Ex Parte Strittmatter 11291895 - (D) DANG 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC NGUYEN, NAM V

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Huang et al 12176337 - (D) GUIJT 102/103 112(2) YUMING HUANG GALL, LLOYD A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte O’SULLIVAN 13286129 - (D) BROWNE 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. WONG, STEVEN B

3728 Ex Parte Feinauer et al 10579940 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ELOSHWAY, NIKI MARINA

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
2745 Ex parte GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6122482 et al 09/001,484 90012127 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC Third Party Reqeuster: Greenblum & Bernstein, PLC REICHLE, KARIN M original VO, NGUYEN THANH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 ENTEROPTYX, INC. Requester, Respondent v. HEINZ KURZ GmbH MEDIZINTECHNIK Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 6579317 et al 09/933,619 95000662 - (D) SONG 102/103 STRIKER STRIKER & STENBY Third Party Requester: GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J

tate access, KCJ, mccormick, patlex, etter, freeman, abbott labs2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Connell 12127099 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP AKHAVANNIK, HADI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Angell et al 11769409 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. BROWN, ALVIN L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Harris et al 10529227 - (D) TIMM 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC TURK, NEIL N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Rokui 11130171 - (D) POTHIER 103 KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. DECKER, CASSANDRA L

2493 Ex Parte Herbach et al 10699520 - (D) BOUCHER 103 Adobe / Finch & Maloney PLLC LE, CHAU D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Kerestic 12133476 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC ROSEN, ELIZABETH H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Yokota et al 11235108 - (D) ANDERSON 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP MAY, ROBERT J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Gatto et al 11616072 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. CHAMPAGNE, LUNA

The Federal Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that, as a general rule, when an indefinite article, such as “a,” is used with a term in an open-ended claim containing the transitional phrase “comprising,” the article is properly construed to mean “one or more.” See, e.g., Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“It is well settled that the term ‘a’ or ‘an’ ordinarily means ‘one or more.”’); KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

VACATED
2306 FRESENIUS USA, INC., AND FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendants-Cross Appellants. 2012-1334, -1335 5,247,434 07/688,174 DYK dissent NEWMAN declaratory judgment Fish & Richardson, P.C.; K&L Gates, LLP original KLARQUIST, SPARKMAN, CAMPBELL LEIGH & WHINSTON GORDON, PAUL P

Under the reissue statute, the PTO “had no power to revoke, cancel, or annul” a previously issued patent unless a reissue proceeding had been initiated by the patentee. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. C. Aultman & Co., 169 U.S. 606, 612 (1898); see also Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 601 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In 1980, Congress authorized ex parte reexamination to address this deficiency in the reissue statute. See Patent Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015 (1980) (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. §§ 301–307). Like reissuance, ex parte reexamination is a curative proceeding meant to correct or eliminate erroneously granted patents. See In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Congress subsequently enacted additional provisions authorizing the PTO to conduct inter partes reexaminations, and more recently, inter partes review. See Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (discussing inter partes reexamination and inter partes review); Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 6(a), 125 Stat. 284, 299–304 (2011) (to be codified at 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319).

Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 225 USPQ 243 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2211, 2611

Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2242, 2258, 2279, 2286, 2642, 2686.04

Freeman, In re, 30 F.3d 1459, 31 USPQ2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 706.03(w), 2250, 2666.01

datamize, KCJ, abtox, insituform, baldwin graphic

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte San Martin 09/861,314 GONSALVES 103(a) 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER JONES, HUGH M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Nottingham et al 11/065,963 CALVE 102(b)/103(a) 112(2) PITTS & LAKE P C EXAMINER BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE

See Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention.”).

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . .2173.05(b)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Leydet et al 11/741,397 WALSH 112(2)/103(a)/102(e) 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER WILLSE, DAVID H

This court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article “a” or “an” in patent parlance carries the meaning of “one or more” in openended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That “a” or “an” can mean “one or more” is best described as a rule, rather than merely as a presumption or even a convention. The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must “evince[ ] a clear intent” to limit “a” or “an” to “one.” Id. The subsequent use of definite articles “the” or “said” in a claim to refer back to the same claim term does not change the general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that non-singular meaning. An exception to the general rule that “a” or “an” means more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule. See, e.g., Abtox Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc., 99 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342-1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The indefinite article “a” or “an” in patent parlance carries the meaning of “one or more” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” Baldwin Graphic Systems, 512 F.3d at 1342.

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Cowan et al 10/743,848 KOHUT 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R

2197 Ex Parte Falk et al 10/844,985 FRAHM 101/103(a) Kenneth F. Kozik EXAMINER RUTTEN, JAMES D

Because the data structure is not limited to being associated with the structured data object or the structured content model representation (i.e., “a data object” lacks antecedent basis linking it to either the structured data object or the structured content model representation), the claimed structured data object also imparts no functionality and is not embodied in a tangible computer readable medium. See Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).

samour, KCJ, harari, wyer, nystrom, olson

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Watkinson 10/598,398 KRATZ 103(a) EDWIN D. SCHINDLER EXAMINER FRANKLIN, JODI C

1787 Ex Parte Fugitt et al 12/326,430 WARREN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION EXAMINER ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A

While it is entirely appropriate to rely on another reference to clarify a fact in the anticipating reference, see, e.g., In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562, 197 USPQ 1, 4 (CCPA 1978), the supporting reference must in fact accomplish that purpose.

Samour, In re, 571 F.2d 559, 197 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131.01

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Reese et al 10/458,888 RUGGIERO 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MCLEAN, NEIL R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Rosset 10/363,261 NAGUMO 103(a) 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Banfield et al 11/366,397 JEFFERY 112(2)/103(a) 103(a) NEIFELD IP LAW, PC EXAMINER PAULS, JOHN A

It is well settled that where, as here, the indefinite article “a” or “an” means “one or more” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We recognize, however, that “[w]hen the claim language and specification indicate that ‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open-ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Babb et al 11/605,381 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, DONGHAI D
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2827 Ex Parte 6504103 et al 90/008,306 08/821,760 COOPER TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY Patent Owner, Appellant EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Larson Newman, LLP Abel Law Group, LLP Third Party Requester: Kevin W. Jakel Kaye Scholer, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER PALADINI, ALBERT WILLIAM

The new products in the field or otherwise displayed or marketed would have served as a guide to the brochure in an analogous fashion to a card catalog, leading “persons interested” in the product to the brochure. Cf. In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1981) (properly classified, indexed or abstracted document renders it sufficiently accessible to “persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art”).

Wyer, In re, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901.05, 2127, 2128
Appellant also complains that the Examiner relies on “speculative modeling premised on unstated assumptions in drawings.” (App. Br. 16 (citing, inter alia, Nystrom v. Trex Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1148-49 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .) But Application of Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954) indicates that if a prohibitive scaling rule does apply, it normally applies to patent drawings, and not “shop drawings,” because “[o]rdinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability.”
AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2831 Ex Parte 6984791 et al 95/000,208 10/412,683 COOPER TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY Patent Owner, Appellant v. THOMAS & BETTS CORP. Requestor EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Larson Newman, LLP Abel Law Group, LLP Third Party Requester: Kevin W. Jakel c/o Kaye Scholer, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER NINO, ADOLFO

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3301 Ex Parte 5417691 et al Ex parte SMITH AND NEPHEW, INC. Appellant 90/009,307 08/048,922 SONG 102(b)/ obviousness-type double patenting FOR PATENT OWNER: HANCOCK HUGHEY, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: STEPHEN A. SOFFEN DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO, LLP EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN original EXAMINER BROWN, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Okamoto et al 10/548,541 FREDMAN 112(2)/112(1) Cheng Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER SAUCIER, SANDRA E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Eriksson et al 11/596,256 GAUDETTE 103(a) Novak Druce + Quigg LLP EXAMINER ORLANDO, MICHAEL N

1775 Ex Parte Deblois et al 10/488,110 GAUDETTE 103(a) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

1789 Ex Parte Goedeken et al 10/677,029 McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) KAGAN BINDER, PLLC EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/807,636 DANG 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER HUYNH, NAM TRUNG

KCJ

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Sakurai et al 11/924,052 PAK 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R

1715 Ex Parte WHITE 11/565,400 COLAIANNI 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT

1717 Ex Parte Pacetti 11/649,497 KRATZ 103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER BOWMAN, ANDREW J

1723 Ex Parte Emesh et al 11/164,270 OWENS 103(a) SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. (Novellus) EXAMINER LEADER, WILLIAM T

1734 Ex Parte Harutyunyan et al 11/723,185 KRATZ 103(a) Capitol City TechLaw, PLLC EXAMINER LEE, REBECCA Y

1742 Ex Parte Papin et al 11/191,816 ROBERTSON 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, PA & MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC EXAMINER THROWER, LARRY W

1747 Ex Parte Radulescu et al 11/324,917 COLAIANNI 103(a) COHEN, PONTANI, LIEBERMAN & PAVANE EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Denton et al 10/889,505 KAUFFMAN 103(a) VEDDER PRICE P.C. EXAMINER JAYNE, DARNELL M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte LaVon et al 11/636,675 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3761 Ex Parte LaVon et al 11/446,460 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3766 Ex Parte Kurzweil et al 11/136,338 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER SCHAETZLE, KENNEDY
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1625 Ex Parte Dumas et al 11/768,112 WALSH 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a)/obviousness-type
double patenting MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER CHANDRAKUMAR, NIZAL S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Goldsmith 10/853,976 TIMM 103(a) 103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

1778 Ex Parte Bagci et al 10/778,523 WARREN 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER CECIL, TERRY K
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1742 Ex Parte 6074454 et al 90/009,288 08/678,776 Ex parte DELTA FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION, LLC Appellant LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: STEPHEN L. PETERSON, ESQ. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER JENKINS, DANIEL J
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Dieterle et al 11/131,256 MILLS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR

1634 Ex Parte Eickhoff et al 11/233,505 WALSH 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER SHAW, AMANDA MARIE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Kornfalt et al 10/995,201 NAGUMO 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1764 Ex Parte Leuninger et al 11/718,729 PAK 103(a)/112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P

1775 Ex Parte Tebben et al 11/994,123 GARRIS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Atkinson 10/252,603 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, SHAMBHAVI K

2169 Ex Parte Barsness et al 10/970,523 DILLON 103(a) Leslie J. Payne IBM Corporation - Dept. 917 EXAMINER CHAU, DUNG K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Goldfarb et al 10/335,076 DROESCH 103(a) NBCUniversal Media, LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, P.C. EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

We broadly interpret the claim language to include allowing all users to create at least one event (i.e., one or more), or change at least one event. See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[A]n indefinite article "a" or "an" in patent parlance carries the meaning of "one or more" in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase "comprising."") (citations omitted). We do not interpret the claim language to require any two users to be able to create or change the same event.

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Reithinger 11/126,095 KRIVAK 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER ENSEY, BRIAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Wardlaw 10/924,057 HORNER 102(b) WILLIAM C. NORVELL, JR. Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.P. EXAMINER FULLER, ROBERT EDWARD
REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/375,657 WALSH 103(a)/112(2) Patricia A. Sweeney EXAMINER WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON

DENIED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Gauselmann 10/458,002 BAHR 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER HARPER, TRAMAR YONG

herr, KCJ, pitney bowes

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Jimenez Mayorga et al 10/555,286 SCHEINER 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER LOEWE, SUN JAE Y

1631 Ex Parte Cohen et al 11/172,492 PRATS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP(Medtr Minimed) EXAMINER RIGGS II, LARRY D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte KARAMI et al 11/781,543 McCOLLUM 103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

1772 Ex Parte Siskin et al 11/256,728 WARREN 103(a) ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAM M

In the Reply Brief, Appellants submit that the “new and more extensive record on the present application” makes “irrelevant” the Examiner’s determination that the claimed processes in the prior and present Appeals are “essentially equivalent.” Reply Br. 1, citing and quoting In re Herr, 377 F.2d 610, 611 (CCPA 1967) (the issue in any appeal is whether appellant is entitled to allowance of the claims “in the application and record” on appeal).

Herr, In re, 377 F.2d 610, 153 USPQ 548 (CCPA 1967). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(w)
1778 Ex Parte Dart et al 11/545,393 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER HRUSKOCI, PETER A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Trivedi 10/097,934 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER AILES, BENJAMIN A

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Fuccello et al 11/001,436 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER PATEL, NIMESH

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Blodgett et al 11/872,628 BARRETT 112(1) INSKEEP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP, INC EXAMINER CHENEVERT, PAUL A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Frauhammer et al 11/157,019 BAHR 103(a) STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER LOPEZ, MICHELLE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Kuebelbeck 10/592,017 SMITH 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1766 Ex Parte Rappoport et al 11/478,455 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Sabiers et al 10/387,614 TURNER 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Kilroy et al 11/298,438 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER HOANG, ANN THI

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Ravikumar et al 11/462,049 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FEENEY, BRETT A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Perez 11/533,075 LEBOVITZ 103(a) 112(1) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER LU, JIPING

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1773 Ex Parte 7090906 et al ANEMOSTAT PRODUCTS and TECHNICAL GLASS PRODUCTS Requesters and Respondents v. Patent of O’KEEFFE’S, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,010, 95/001,020 & 90/010,016 10/238,115 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/112(1)/112(2) 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: JONES DAY FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: NICHOLAS J. TUCCILLO McCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ROBERT F. SCOTTI KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER CHEN, VIVIAN

The term “a” is an indefinite article which is customarily interpreted to mean “at least one,” permitting the inclusion of additional elements which are not recited in the claim. See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1111 Ex Parte 6219674 et al Ex parte CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,638 08/184,900 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC. FOR THE THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JAMES B. MONROE FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER BANANKHAH, MAJID A original EXAMINER SKAPARS, ANTHONY

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3738 Ex Parte 7291182 et al Ex parte OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY Appellant 90/009,310 09/121,300 DELMENDO 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ERIC M. GAYAN STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DR. ALDO A. LAGHI c/o RONALD A. CHRISTALDI SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER WILLSE, DAVID H
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Ohmi et al 10/363,640 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

1732 Ex Parte Gulevich et al 10/594,780 KIMLIN 103(a) DILWORTH IP, LLC EXAMINER
QIAN, YUN

1747 Ex Parte Kanz et al 11/860,742 HANLON 103(a) John D. DeLong The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1762 Ex Parte Kirchmeyer et al 10/627,162 COLAIANNI concurring NAGUMO 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER NERANGIS, VICKEY MARIE

1764 Ex Parte Meng et al 11/841,466 COLAIANNI 112(2)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER PAK, HANNAH J

1771 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/873,714 HANLON 103(a) Infineum USA L.P. EXAMINER
TOOMER, CEPHIA D

1771 Ex Parte Chambard et al 10/947,093 FRANKLIN 103(a) Infineum USA L.P. EXAMINER OLADAPO, TAIWO

1778 Ex Parte Haase 10/413,849 WARREN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) RICHARD A. HAASE (INVENTOR) EXAMINER HRUSKOCI, PETER A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/257,802 BLANKENSHIP 112(1)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, PAUL L

2177 Ex Parte Gibson 10/366,091 KRIVAK 103(a) Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. EXAMINER HUYNH, THU V

2181 Ex Parte Claseman 10/846,724 POTHIER 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER DEWS, BROOKE J

2185 Ex Parte Boyd et al 11/357,473 KRIVAK 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER AYASH, MARWAN

2186 Ex Parte Nobunaga et al 11/042,256 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) LEFFERT JAY & POLGLAZE, P.A. EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Negishi et al 09/931,577 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, P.L.L.C EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Lurkens et al 10/509,410 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER AMADIZ, RODNEY

2811 Ex Parte Kavalieros et al 11/581,183 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER LI, MEIYA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Kalley et al 10/093,460 DANG 103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER
LEE, SHUN K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Sawyer 11/395,994 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) HEDMAN & COSTIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER RASHID, MAHBUBUR

“If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Purcell et al 10/648,590 McCARTHY 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER ROANE, AARON F

KCJ, hilton

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Weller 11/187,741 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Li et al 10/465,750 KRIVAK 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER BELLO, AGUSTIN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Choi 10/864,870 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, THINH T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Tam et al 10/800,293 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. EXAMINER MARSH, STEVEN M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Sato et al 11/429,320 HORNER 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER GORDEN, RAEANN

3741 Ex Parte Wood 10/443,324 HORNER 103(a) THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION EXAMINER DWIVEDI, VIKANSHA S

3742 Ex Parte Ciancimino et al 11/041,634 GREENHUT 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Barbee et al 11/189,191 COURTENAY 101/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) STEVEN M. GREENBERG CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER SONG, DAEHO D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Della-Libera et al 11/254,519 DROESCH 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Burkum et al 11/198,101 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, JONG SUK

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Ortiz et al 11/197,528 GREENHUT 102(b)/103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2874 PANDUIT CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,415 6,925,242 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) FOR PATENT OWNER: MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER PALMER, PHAN T H

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2874 PANDUIT CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,413 7,167,625 LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: Karen A. Fitzsimmons MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC original EXAMINER LEE, JOHN D

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2874 PANDUIT CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,412 6,868,220 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) FOR PATENT OWNER: MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER PALMER, PHAN T H
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Kuklinski et al 10/511,882 WALSH 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Gaudiana et al 10/723,554 OWENS 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER TRINH, THANH TRUC

1784 Ex Parte Mellott et al 11/284,424 OWENS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LANGMAN, JONATHAN C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Tsai et al 11/433,195 DANG 112(2)/102(b)/102(e)/103(a) J.C. Patents EXAMINER CLEARY, THOMAS J

2175 Ex Parte Mingot et al 10/557,397 ZECHER 103(a) Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC EXAMINER ZAHR, ASHRAF A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Knittel et al 10/780,833 MORGAN 103(a) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER BELANI, KISHIN G

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Jones 11/274,665 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER SWARTHOUT, BRENT

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Kunow et al 10/489,573 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER KAPLAN, HAL IRA

See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(“This court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article "a‟ or "an‟ in patent parlance carries the meaning of "one or more‟ in openended claims containing the transitional phrase "comprising.‟ [citations omitted.]”).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Smith 11/958,382 KIM 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER BALDORI, JOSEPH B

Compare Ex parte Hilton, 148 USPQ 356, 356-57 (Bd. App. 1965) (claims were directed to fried potato chips with a specified moisture and fat content, whereas the prior art was directed to french fries having a higher moisture content. While recognizing that in some cases the particular shape of a product is of no patentable significance, the Board held in this case the shape (chips) is important because it results in a product which is distinct from the reference product (french fries)).

Hilton, Ex parte, 148 USPQ 356 (Bd. App. 1965). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

REISSUE

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Lechot 10/431,450 6,238,398 KAUFFMAN 102(b) Greatbatch Ltd. EXAMINER NGUYEN, VI X

NEW

REVERSED

1617
Ex Parte Brillouet et al
11/483,903 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SOROUSH, ALI

2163 Ex Parte Hillebrand 10/524,655 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIM T

2471 Ex Parte Hruska 10/253,092 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(2) Werner Ulrich EXAMINER WONG, WARNER

1724 Ex Parte Hwang 11/324,344 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) EXAMINER BERMAN, JASON

AFFIRMED

3663 Ex Parte Akers et al 11/106,871 O’NEILL 103(a) TUROCY & WATSON, LLP EXAMINER PALABRICA, RICARDO J

2837 Ex Parte Babb et al 10/830,660 KOHUT Concurring-In-Part BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GLASS, ERICK DAVID

2478 Ex Parte Berstis et al 11/044,569 DILLON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

3689 Ex Parte Brice et al 10/464,180 FISCHETTI 102(e) Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER
MOONEYHAM, JANICE A

2434 Ex Parte Della-Libera et al 10/068,444 DROESCH 102(b)/103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID

2452 Ex Parte Fank et al 10/658,139 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER HOANG, HIEU T

1722 Ex Parte Hada et al 10/547,632 OWENS 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, CONNIE P

2471 Ex Parte LeBlanc 10/077,405 MACDONALD 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER WONG, WARNER

2166 Ex Parte Motoyama et al 10/460,404 COURTENAY 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE

1763 Ex Parte Roesler et al 11/198,734 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I