McLaughlin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Pisek et al 13248900 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 Docket Clerk - SAMS CHAUDRY, MUJTABA M

2112 Ex Parte RADKE 14148019 - (D) SHIANG 102 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA - MICRON RIZK, SAMIR WADIE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Tohma 10703935 - (D) MEYERS 103 BGL RAJ, RAJIV J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Strommer et al 11329824 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC (STJ) MATHEW, SEEMA

3761 Ex Parte Nandrea et al 13033014 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY TREYGER, ILYA Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2138 Ex Parte Diare 13421060 - (D) KHAN 103 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise PORTKA, GARY J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Hernandez et al 13351092 - (D) BEAMER 103 112(1)/103 DOVAS LAW P.C. NEALON, WILLIAM

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3747 Ex Parte OKABE et al 13276405 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC STAUBACH, CARL C

3752 Ex Parte Minion 12040145 - (D) DOUGAL 102/103 102/103 COREY MINION BOECKMANN, JASON J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Shaked et al 13073899 - (D) SCHNEIDER 103 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. LEVIN, MIRIAM A

1618 Ex Parte Hemstad 12305977 - (D) MAJORS 103 GE Healthcare, Inc. DONOHUE, SEAN R

1646 Ex Parte Goronzy et al 13231282 - (D) NEW 101 Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing HOWARD, ZACHARY C

1678 Ex Parte Penn et al 13825379 - (D) FREDMAN 101 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. CHEU, CHANGHWA J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Sczepan et al 12209448 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. JIANG, LISHA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Feinberg et al 12985264 - (D) FRAHM 103 Ascenda Law Group, PC LIU, JUNG-JEN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte KILGARD 13111148 - (D) BEAMER 103 Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA GE, JIN

2627 Ex Parte Cruz-Hernandez et al 12696893 - (D) THOMAS 103 Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, LLP MEHMOOD, JENNIFER

2659 Ex Parte VROOM 13633687 - (D) HOMERE 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP TZENG, FENG-TZER

2696 Ex Parte Nurmi 12732816 - (D) HUME 102/103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP LUBIT, RYAN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Greither 13448744 - (D) REN 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. COMBER, KEVIN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte CAVARRETTA et al 13437499 - (D) PLENZLER 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. LAU, JASON

Appellants do not identify any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellants’ disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) 707.07(f) , 2145

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 APPLE INC., Requester, v. VIRNETX INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7921211 et al 11/840,560 95001789 - (R) SIU 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP Third-Party Requester: Sidley Austin LLP FOSTER, ROLAND G original LIM, KRISNA

McLaughlin, mraz, hockerson-halberstadt, wilson1

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Manjunath et al 12720689 - (D) ENGELS 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PEACH, POLINA G

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Wang et al 12864205 - (D) HANLON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Gill 12084718 - (D) WOODS 103 Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co., LPA IHEZIE, JOSHUA K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte DAY et al 12267815 - (D) KINDER 103 103 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP (SV) DRAGOESCU, CLAUDIA B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Irwin 10775680 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 102/103 DILWORTH IP, LLC HENRY, RODNEY M

3696 Ex Parte Deeming et al 12144538 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/103 103 AOL Inc./Finnegan BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Grgac et al 12746948 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 MAGNA INTERNATIONAL, INC. VAN SELL, NATHAN L

It has been recognized that the question of obviousness involves hindsight reasoning:

Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.

In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) 707.07(f) , 2145

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Hammen et al 12136058 - (D) JIVANI 112(2)/103 Perkins Coie LLP - SHA General WITZENBURG, BRUCE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Jacobs 11852956 - (D) McCARTNEY 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. SMITH, CHENEA

2487 Ex Parte Biesbrouck et al 11008165 - (D) SHIANG 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON WERNER, DAVID N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Kirk 12193546 - (D) HOSKINS 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG NGUYEN, BAO LONG T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Hoang 12515531 - (D) WOODS 102/103 FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION) FOX, JOHN C

While we are mindful that Hockerson-Halberstadt cautioned that patent drawings not designated as being drawn to scale cannot be relied upon to define precise proportions of elements if the specification is completely silent on the issue, that does not mean, “that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded.” In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972); Hockerson-Halberstadt, 222 F.3d at 956. ...

We find the Mraz decision to be more on point than both the Wright and Nystrom cases. The Mraz case involved a claim that included an edging roll having a groove therein formed by inwardly converging inclined surfaces, with the angle of the inclines not exceeding 15°. Mraz, 435 F.2d at
1070. A prior art reference to Wilson, asserted to disclose this claim feature, and illustrating (but not explicitly disclosing in writing) an angle of incline of about 6°, was characterized by the Court as, “focus[ing] on the edge rolls, showing them with great particularity and showing the grooves thereon to have an angularity well within the range recited in appellant’s claims.” 1 Id. at 1072. This was contrasted with and distinguished from a situation in an earlier decision, In re Wilson, in which “the attempted reliance was not only on a patent drawing per se, it was on a greatly enlarged section of a small drawing obviously never intended to show the dimensions of anything.” Mraz, 435 F.2d at 1072; In re Wilson, 312 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1963).

1 The angle of incline was presumably determined through the simple use of a protractor.

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2125

Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) 2125

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL INC. Requester and Respondent v. MOTIONPOINT CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7584216 et al 10/784,727 95001918 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP - MotionPoint THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC DESAI, RACHNA SINGH original AL HASHEMI, SANA A

McLaughlin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte DEWEERD et al 12640689 - (D) WILSON 102/103 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 WHATLEY, KATELYN B

1716 Ex Parte Devine et al 11829258 - (D) WARREN 103 PRITZKAU PATENT GROUP, LLC FORD, NATHAN K

1773 Ex Parte Song 11956420 - (D) WARREN 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. SASAKI, SHOGO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte Chen et al 12015069 - (D) MORGAN 112(1)/103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES HEBERT, THEODORE E

We remind Appellants and Appellants’ counsel that decorum and courtesy are expected when conducting business with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 37 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2012). As such, every effort should be made in future proceedings to avoid the use of language and tone that may be considered accusatory, condescending, or inflammatory. See, e.g., Reply Br. 1 (“the conferees, including two SPEs, somewhat incredibly maintain the specious argument . . . ignoring their own reference in a misguided effort to maintain a written description [rejection]”); id. at 3 (“The Answer adds nothing to the poor rejection . . . except to confirm the conferees not only fail to read their own references with a great deal of comprehension, they also fail to read the claims very closely as well.”).

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Weel 12019015 - (D) BEAMER 103 Concert Technology Corporation DAFTUAR, SAKET K

2472 Ex Parte Kucuk et al 11468917 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP FARAHMAND, ASHIL S

The Examiner’s conclusory statement that one would have been motivated to do so “to reduce excessively allocated bandwidth” (Ans. 5) appears to be a product of hindsight reasoning—the result of the Examiner impermissibly using Appellants’ claims as a roadmap.

Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.

In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2668 Ex Parte Sugimoto 11089225 - (D) STEPHENS 102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC TSAI, TSUNG YIN

2694 Ex Parte Miyazaki 11652977 - (D) BARRETT 103 Husch Blackwell LLP Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz TUNG, DAVID

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Yurochko et al 11080375 - (D) KRATZ 103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (QCA) CULLER, JILL E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Evans et al 12716311 - (D) REIMERS 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC BURKE, SEAN P

3654 Ex Parte Lakomiak et al 12335659 - (D) REIMERS 102/103 Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY REESE, ROBERT T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Chontos et al 12189765 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102 112(2)/102 Law Office of Jim Boice MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Browne et al 11593292 - (D) BROWN 112(2)/103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 POWELL LAW, PC MAESTRI, PATRICK J

3681 Ex Parte Haveliwala et al 10877775 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(2)/103 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Krumrei 11714328 - (D) BROWN 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) VINCENT L. CARNEY LAW OFFICE LAUX, DAVID J

3753 Ex Parte Olivera et al 11611443 - (D) HOSKINS 103 103 ALCON MURPHY, KEVIN F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Sprouse et al 12436965 - (D) BEST 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Gikas et al 11313124 - (D) Per Curiam 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION HASAN, SYED HAROON

2168 Ex Parte Guven et al 11968993 - (D) McKEOWN Dissenting McCARTHY 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP DWIVEDI, MAHESH H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Wolford 11396534 - (D) SAADAT 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HAILU, TESHOME

2443 Ex Parte Malden et al 10244137 - (D) MORGAN 103 CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP DENNISON, JERRY B

2461 Ex Parte Periyalwar et al 11718006 - (D) HOFF 103 Fish & Richardson PC MATTIS, JASON E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Garcia Tello et al 12595119 - (D) HANLON 102/103 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing ANYA, IGWE U

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Kerf 12294451 - (D) GOODSON 112(1) 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. SWINNEY, JENNIFER B

3748 Ex Parte Abram et al 11969936 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 Carlson, Gaskey & Olds, P.C. FAURECIA SHANSKE, JASON D

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
2900 Designs 2917 2913
SIMMONS BEDDING COMPANY Requester and Appellant v. SEALY TECHNOLOGY LLC Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte D622531 et al 29/343,599 95001549 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 Black McCuskey Souers & Arbaugh THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ROPES & GRAY LLP KRAKOWER, SUSAN E original SEEGER, JANICE E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 INOVA LABS, INC. Third Party Requester/Cross-Appellant v. INOGEN, INC. Patent Owner/Appellant Ex Parte 6605136 et al 10/192,360 95001886 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. DIAMOND, ALAN D original SPITZER, ROBERT H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2143 SILVER PEAK SYSTEMS, INC. Requester and Respondent, v. Patent of RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant, Ex Parte 7428573 et al 11/229,016 95002308 - (D) POTHIER 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FENWICK & WEST LLP LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original NGUYEN, PHUOC H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 SILVER PEAK SYSTEMS, INC. Requester and Respondent, v. Patent of RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant, Ex Parte 7849134 et al 12/191,805 95002310 - (D) POTHIER 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FENWICK & WEST LLP LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original NGUYEN, PHUOC H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. Third Party Requester/Cross-Appellant v. PENTAIR LTD. and PENTAIR AQUATIC SYSTEMS (f/k/a PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA, INC.) Patent Owner/Appellant Ex Parte 7815420 et al 11/981,754 95002007 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP Third Party Requester: McCarter & English, LLP DOERRLER, WILLIAM CHARLES original DWIVEDI, VIKANSHA S

remark, demaco, pentec, McLaughlin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Warrier et al 10577754 - (D) SMITH 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC MARKS, JACOB B

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Sperle et al 11284263 - (D) SHIANG 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP RICHARDSON, JAMES E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Cooper et al 11252320 - (D) HUGHES 102 THOMSON Licensing LLC VANCHY JR, MICHAEL J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Peltier et al 12331621 - (D) HOELTER 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. ADAMOS, THEODORE V

3663 Ex Parte Katsumata et al 11476143 - (D) BROWNE 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP TISSOT, ADAM D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Lloyd 12011415 - (D) SMEGAL 103 102/103 Jerrod R. Lloyd AVILA, STEPHEN P

In ex parte proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, an applicant must show that the claimed features were responsible for the commercial success of an article if the evidence of nonobviousness is to be accorded substantial weight. Merely asserting commercial success of an article-alleged to embody an invention that is being offered for sale by another-is not sufficient. See Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1502-03 (BPAI 1990). Compare Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1394 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988). See also Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (commercial success may have been attributable to extensive advertising and position as a market leader before the introduction of the patented product).

Remark, Ex parte, 15 USPQ2d 1498 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) 716.03 , 716.03(b) , 2144.08

Demaco Corp. v. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   716.01(b) ,   716.01(d) ,   716.03 ,  716.03(a) ,  716.03(b)

Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.03(b) , 716.06 , 2141.01(a)


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Ott 11625357 - (D) GOODSON 103 obviousness-type double patenting FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) MAYE, AYUB A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Fukushima et al 11812272 - (D) HASTINGS 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO BOYLE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Buller et al 12244764 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG SINGH, AMRESH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Swager et al 12268291 - (D) WINSOR 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Lu et al 12502211 - (D) KATZ 103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. ALROBAIE, KHAMDAN N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Buhamad 12706858 - (D) SMEGAL 103 LOWE HAUPTMAN & HAM, LLP RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE

See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971(“[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning”).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) 707.07(f) , 2145

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kleyne 11599496 - (D) KINDER 103 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. SHEARER, DANIEL R

3777 Ex Parte Cain et al 12569061 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 SHAY GLENN LLP NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC

Chase Elevator, McLaughlin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Holahan 10542506 - (D) GREEN 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C. JONES, DAMERON LEVEST

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Kraft 11726548 - (D) TIMM 103 James Ray & Associates Intellectual Property, LLC SMITH, CHAIM A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Murthy et al 11286873 - (D) ZECHER 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 ORACLE HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG JOHNSON, JOHNESE T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Birk et al 11570578 - (D) ADAMS 112(2)/102/103 Hovey Williams LLP HAYES, KRISTEN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Maschke 11311772 - (D) SAINDON 102/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION BEHRINGER, LUTHER G

3767 Ex Parte Ludwig et al 12167791 - (D) GRIMES 103 ABBOTT FULWIDER PATTON, LLP BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

3773 Ex Parte Parker 11099733 - (D) GRIMES 103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK TYSON, MELANIE RUANO

3775 Ex Parte de Villiers et al 12025561 - (D) ASTORINO 102 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte McGlynn et al 12417367 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 103 EMCORE CORPORATION BERNIER, LINDSEY A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Trosman et al 10748174 - (D) BAHR 103 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. MONDT, JOHANNES P

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte FUKUI et al 11560937 - (D) ADAMS 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Althofer 11359948 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP SAAD, ERIN BARRY

1741 Ex Parte Hing et al 12216710 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC HOFFMANN, JOHN M

1766 Ex Parte Fujimoto et al 12227047 - (D) McKELVEY 103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. FANG, SHANE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Chen et al 11091212 - (D) HOMERE 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STITT, ERIK V

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Kelley et al 11163225 - (D) ARPIN 103 IBM WHITHAM, CURTIS, CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. POGMORE, TRAVIS D

In In re McLaughlin, the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals stated that:

Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but [where, as here, that judgement] takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.

443 F.2d 1392, 1395, (CCPA 1971) (emphases added).  

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) 707.07(f) , 2145

2456 Ex Parte Gaal 11172822 - (D) GREENHUT 103 XEROX CORPORATION CHANG, TOM Y

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2677 Ex Parte Harrison 10885421 - (D) HUME 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. AMIN, JWALANT B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Hutchens et al 10991705 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. HUR, JUNG H

2828 Ex Parte Freund 11371277 - (D) BRADEN 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP KING, JOSHUA

2856 Ex Parte Quarry 11143544 - (D) WEINBERG 112(1)/103 LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY MILLER, ROSE MARY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Roots et al 11301674 - (D) KIM 101/102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP THOMPSON, MICHAEL M

3685 Ex Parte Birkestrand et al 10406164 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 IBM HEWITT II, CALVIN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Plocher 11200683 - (D) MILLS 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH YAO, SAMCHUAN CUA

3777 Ex Parte Perez-Cruet 11756274 - (D) WALSH 103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC IP, JASON M

On the evidence of record, we affirm, as the Examiner’s reasoning is consistent with precedent:

While the omission of an element in a combination may constitute invention if the result of the new combination be the same as before, yet, if the omission of an element is attended by a corresponding omission of the function performed by that element, there is no invention if the elements retained perform the same function as before.

Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 159 U.S. 477, 486 (1895).

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3993 Ex parte SIMS VIBRATION LABORATORY, INC. Appellant, Patent Owner 90009930 6298842 SONG 103 Wells St. John P.S. JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R
 
REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Stiles et al 12008354 - (D) COLAIANNI Butzel Long HORNING, JOEL G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Afrashteh et al 11407035 - (R) ZECHER 103 SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION SHEDRICK, CHARLES TERRELL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Freedman 11381583 - (D) HOFF 103 Philip D. Freedman PC KUO, WENSING W

McLaughlin

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Lunev et al 11/293,576 HOFF 103(a) CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP EXAMINER BADAWI, SHERIEF

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Carvalho et al 11/371,035 HORNER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER WIEHE, NATHANIEL EDWARD

3771 Ex Parte Dunkley et al 10/821,624 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) NOVARTIS EXAMINER MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Chan et al 10/403,551 DROESCH 102(b)/103(a) PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN PLLC EXAMINER DAILEY, THOMAS J

We recognize that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but is proper so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). However, Appellants do not meaningfully explain how the determination of obviousness is based upon knowledge gleaned only from Appellants’ Specification.

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2684 Ex Parte 7043283 et al Ex parte BLACK & DECKER INC. 90/010,906 & 90/010,909 10/758,492 SIU 103(a) Appellant FOR PATENT OWNER: BLACK & DECKER, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MAX SHAFTAL PATZIK, FRANK & SAMOTNY, LTD. EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER GANTT, ALAN T

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2618 Ex Parte 7466974 et al Ex parte BLACK & DECKER INC. 90/010,902 & 90/010,908 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION Third Party Requester: PATZIK, FRANK & SAMOTNY LTD. EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER PHU, SANH D
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Grubb 10/602,945 PAK 103(a) ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED EXAMINER DOVE, TRACY MAE

1734 Ex Parte Muha et al 11/218,618 GUEST 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Mahony et al 10/606,677 HAHN 112(1)/103(a) AT&T Legal Department - GMG EXAMINER LI, SHI K
REHEARING

GRANTED AFFIRMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Garfinkle 12/057,127 BROWN 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER DAVIS, CASSANDRA HOPE

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Goldberg et al PRATS 102(b)/103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP 

Ex Parte Ramji et al GREEN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY 

Ex Parte Zauderer et al SCHEINER 103(a) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Ko KRATZ 103(a) THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. 

Ex Parte Duffy KRATZ 112(1)/102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 

When the original written description describes something within the scope of the claim, the Examiner must do more than point out the difference in scope. This is so because "that a claim may be broader than the specific embodiment disclosed in a specification is in itself of no moment." In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1215 (CCPA 1981). There are instances in which a narrower disclosure can support broader claims. Id. 

 Rasmussen, In re, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . 706.03(o), 1504.04, 2163, 2163.01, 2163.04, 2163.05, 2163.06 

Ex Parte McCormick ROBERTSON 103(a) Thompson Coburn LLP 

Ex Parte Barhorst et al GARRIS 103(a) HOUSTON ELISEEVA 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Chandhoke et al BARRY 102(e)/103(a) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Nazzal WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) Riverbed Technology Inc. - PVF c/o Park, Vaughan & Fleming LLP

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Burbidge et al NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) MOTOROLA INC 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components Ex Parte Zheng BAUMEISTER 103(a)/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP 

Any judgment on obvious that is based on knowledge gleaned solely from Appellant’s disclosure is improper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, (CCPA 1971).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145

Ex Parte Lan et al HAHN 102(b)/103(a) SPANSION LLC C/O MURABITO , HAO & BARNES, L.L.P 

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

Ex Parte Francis CRAWFORD 102(e) WELSH & FLAXMAN, LLC 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Carstens SONG 102(b)/103(a) Hasse & Nesbitt LLC 

Ex Parte Kucera et al BAHR 102(b)/103(a) WARN, HOFFMANN, MILLER & LALONE, .P.C 

Ex Parte Olson et al PATE III 102(a)/102(b)/103(a) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 

Ex Parte Schalk O’NEILL 103(a) COHEN, PONTANI, LIEBERMAN & PAVANE LLP 

Ex Parte Wong McCARTHY 103(a) SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD. 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Wollenberg WALSH 103(a) M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 

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

Ex Parte Gonska BAHR 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 

Ex Parte Katzenmaier et al TURNER 103(a) 3m Innovative Properties Company 

Ex Parte Post et al PATE 112(1)/103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP