allen eng'g

custom search

Reversed 

Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1618 DIGNITY HEALTH 15031141 WISZ 101/103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1742 THE YOKOHAMA RUBBER CO., LTD. 15038020 SNAY 103 THORPE NORTH & WESTERN/YOKOHAMA KIM, YUNJU

1788 Racing Optics, Inc. 15090681 BEST 102/103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP CHANG, VICTOR S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2175 Imran CHAUDHRI et al. 11850005 SHAW 103 DENTONS US LLP - Apple NABI, REZA U

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security

2439 Siemens Industry, Inc. 14865914 HOMERE 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION SCHMIDT, KARI L

2459 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION 14923112 HOWARD 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- ARC SPARKS, JONATHAN A

Tech Center 2600 Communications

2631 Rambus Inc. 16113900 SAADAT 103 PVF -- RAMBUS, INC. c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP YU, LIHONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2813 SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC 15783239 FRANKLIN 103 SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC (AS) CHAN, CANDICE

2884 SONY CORPORATION 15550477 SMITH 102/103 Sheridan Ross P.C. Bradley M. Knepper FAYE, MAMADOU

2833 Bal Seal Engineering, Inc. 15612664 MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 Klein, O''Neill & Singh, LLP BAILLARGEON, PAUL D

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

3671 Keith Underwood 11482891 ASTORINO 102/103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke) MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

[T}here are thirteen factors indicative of experimental use: 

(1) the necessity for public testing, (2) the amount of control over the experiment retained by the inventor, (3) the nature of the invention, (4) the length of the test period, (5) whether payment was made, (6) whether there was a secrecy obligation, (7) whether records of the experiment were kept, (8) who conducted the experiment, . . . (9) the degree of commercial exploitation during testing[,] . . . (10) whether the invention reasonably requires evaluation under actual conditions of use, (11) whether testing was systematically performed, (12) whether the inventor continually monitored the invention during testing, and (13) the nature of contacts made with potential customers. 

Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1353 (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)

3671 Keith Underwood 12292642 ASTORINO 102/103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke) MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

3676 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. 14890670 BROWN 103 Gilliam IP PLLC (Halliburton) PATEL, NEEL G

3687 Fannie Mae 14444041 SILVERMAN 102 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (DC) WEISENFELD, ARYAN E

Affirmed-in-Part 

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1712 NCC NANO, LLC 15072180 WILSON 103 103 Russell Ng PLLC HORNING, JOEL G

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2176 Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC 15205404 ENGLE 103 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION BURKE, TIONNA M

Affirmed 

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1715 Magna Exteriors GmbH 15344718 HANLON 103 Todd A. VAUGHN Jordan IP Law, LLC LEONG, NATHAN T

1716 LAM Research Corporation 13858834 COLAIANNI 112(2) 103 PENILLA IP, APC and Lam Research Corp. Albert Penilla KLUNK, MARGARET D

1718 PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V. 15301645 MCGEE 103 Signify Holding B.V. MCCLURE, CHRISTINA D

1718 United Technologies Corporation 15863172 SQUIRE 103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. MCCLURE, CHRISTINA D

1747 R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY 14824615 INGLESE 103 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP NGUYEN, PHU HOANG

1763 Bayer MaterialScience LLC 14108865 REN 103 Covestro LLC LEONARD, MICHAEL L

1764 SABIC GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES B.V. 15325350 HEANEY 103/OTDP Cantor Colburn LLP - SABIC Americas KRYLOVA, IRINA

1793 DSM IP ASSETS B.V. 15481332 WILSON 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2179 OATH INC. 15007401 STRAUSS 103 VERIZON MEDIA INC. C/O GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP POSIGIAN, DAVID S.

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security

2431 Apple Inc. 16378306 ENGLE 103 APPLE INC./BROWNSTEIN c/o Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP MCCOY, RICHARD ANTHONY

2463 Nokia Technologies Oy 14364670 ENGLE 103 Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy SOLINSKY, PETER G

2491 MICROSOFT ISRAEL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (2002) LTD 14389527 BENNETT 103 WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT CAREY, FORREST L

Tech Center 2600 Communications

2625 Apple Inc. 15114860 SHAW 103 Dorsey & Whitney LLP/Apple Inc. PARKER, JEFFREY ALAN

2667 Wipotec Wiege- und Positioniersysteme GmbH 14408514 PYONIN 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. SHIN, BRIAN D

2689 Fadi Micaelian 14179996 STAICOVICI 103 Appleton Luff WONG, ALBERT KANG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2828 Sirona Dental Systems GmbH 15223476 HUGHES 103 Venable LLP VAN ROY, TOD THOMAS

2837 SOUND FIGHTER SYSTEMS, LLC 15354537 CASHION 103 DAVIS & BUJOLD, P.L.L.C. SAN MARTIN, EDGARDO

2859 GOPLUG BAGS, INC. 15974031 NAPPI 103 41.50 103 Maschoff Brennan ROBBINS, JERRY D

2884 Berthold Technologies GmbH & Co. KG 15696226 HOWARD 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP RIDDICK, BLAKE CUTLER

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

3637 Joseph Egerhazy 15680926 FITZPATRICK 103 112(2)/102/103 Joseph B. Egerhazy WILKENS, JANET MARIE

3642 AURORA FLIGHT SCIENCES CORPORATION 14280992 DEFRANCO 103 Aurora Flight Sciences / McAndrews, Held & Malloy WANG, MICHAEL H

3686 CALGARY SCIENTIFIC INC. 13911209 HUME 103 Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC WILLIAMS, TERESA S

3697 Capital One Services, LLC 16395818 CRAIG 101 DLA Piper LLP (US) - C1 TRAN, HAI

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

3734 Fatuma Sanneh 15822040 HOELTER 112(2) 103 Neal Blibo LLC MCNURLEN, SCOTT THOMAS

3771 FERROSAN MEDICAL DEVICES A/S 14383461 CAPP 103 HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. GABR, MOHAMED GAMIL

allen eng'g, bell comm jacoby

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Roth 12752630 - (D) GARRIS 103 KURT ROTH C/O M. SLAVIN BECKER, DREW E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Naick et al 10992517 - (D) GRIMES 103 Greg Goshorn, P.C. NGUYEN, THU N

2174 Ex Parte Eschbach et al 11315993 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Basch & Nickerson LLP TILLERY, RASHAWN N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Hansen 11140288 - (D) BROWN 102/103 CLOCK TOWER LAW GROUP ASHRAF, WASEEM

2483 Ex Parte Hahm et al 10890865 - (D) NAPPI 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. HOLDER, ANNER N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Brandenburg et al 10529271 - (D) OWENS 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD MARINI, MATTHEW G

“[T]he preamble may be limiting ‘when the claim drafter chooses to use both the preamble and the body to define the subject matter of the claimed invention.’” Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell Industries Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995). That is what the claim drafter did in the present case.

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)
HARMON 3: 219, 246, 265, 269; 5: 221, 232; 7: 83; 11: 265; 12: 101; 19: 338

Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 2111.02, 2163
DONNER 2: 371, 373; 7: 909; 8: 785, 786; 10: 80, 82, 884, 887
HARMON 6: 335, 338; 7: 120

2892 Ex Parte Kunii 12216081 - (D) BEST 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC GORDON, MATTHEW E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Ruiz Diaz 11674797 - (D) BROWN 103 NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA NGUYEN, SON T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Kim 12094640 - (D) KERINS 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP HAWTHORNE, OPHELIA ALTHEA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Zuckerman et al 12580129 - (D) STAICOVICI obviousness-type double patenting/112(2)/103 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. JAROENCHONWANIT, BUNJOB

An artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Ananny et al 11149710 - (D) STRAUSS 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP KIM, EUNHEE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Stratton et al 11219248 - (D) SMEGAL 102 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global NGUYEN, STEVEN C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Nettles et al 10992962 - (D) HUME 102/103 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. c/o Davidson Sheehan LLP LAUGHLIN, NATHAN L

2168 Ex Parte Gruhl et al 12062096 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(2) 101/103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES TRAN, ANHTAI V

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Ramakesavan 12615495 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 103/251 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. KOSTAK, VICTORR

2442 Ex Parte Heidloff et al 11002578 - (D) ASTORINO 103 LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE SURVILLO, OLEG

2455 Ex Parte Garcia-Martin et al 11350088 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(2)/102 102 Mintz Levin/San Diego Office BAROT, BHARAT

2456 Ex Parte Kamperman et al 10565663 - (D) BROWNE 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS KEEHN, RICHARD G

2478 Ex Parte Moody et al 10745483 - (D) LORIN 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC LI, GUANG W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2696 Ex Parte Willis 11038292 - (D) JEFFERY 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. HOLTON, STEVEN E

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex parte KOTTMAN GOSLA GmbH 90009986 7849884 12/583,788 McCARTHY 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original BRINSON, PATRICK F

REHEARING

DENIED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Maxygen, Inc. Requester v. Amgen, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000440 7381804 10/032,108 GUEST 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP TURNER, SHARON L original LUCAS, ZACHARIAH

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC (formerly known as SmithKline Beecham Corporation), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BANNER PHARMACAPS, INC. AND IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND MYLAN INC. AND MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. FLORIDA, Defendant-Appellant. 2013-1593, -1594, -1595, -1598 5,565,467 08/405,120 TARANTO 112(a) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP; Morrison & Foerster, LLP RAYMOND, RICHARD L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 STARHOME GMBH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, ROAMWARE, INC., AND T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2012-1694 6,920,487 09/739,881 SCHALL SJ non-infringement claim construction Willkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP; Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP original G. E. Ehrlich (1995) Ltd. c/o Anthony Castorina BAROT, BHARAT

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 ELCOMMERCE.COM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAP AG AND SAP AMERICA, INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2011-1369 6,947,903 09/546,347 NEWMAN SJ indefiniteness (system claims) 112(2)/112(6) SJ indefiniteness (method claims) 112(2)/112(6)/jurisdiction and venue Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P.; Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP original HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. SMITH, JEFFREY A

cordis, allen eng'g, catalina, pitney bowes

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1711 Ex Parte Hoppe et al 11828560 - (D) GARRIS 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) CORMIER, DAVID G

1791 Ex Parte Cross et al 11206424 - (D) TIMM 103 Hovey Williams LLP GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte NARAYAN et al 11462577 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. ALAM, SHAHID AL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Baugh 11649872 - (D) HORNER 102/103 BENTON F. BAUGH MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Alicherry et al 11668800 - (D) FISHMAN 103 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP TIV, BACKHEAN

Claim construction is an issue of law that we review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The preamble of claim 8 recites “[a] method for use by a secure client associated with a user device” (emphasis added). “Generally,” [the Federal Circuit has] said, “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, the preamble may be construed as limiting “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed.Cir.2002), quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed.Cir.1999). We conclude that the preamble of claim 1 does give life and meaning to the steps of the claim and will construe “for use by a secure client.”

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

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

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

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1726 Ex Parte SENOO et al 09162992 - (D) PAK 103 K&L Gates LLP DOVE, TRACY MAE

1766 Ex Parte Dessinges et al 12348542 - (D) BEST 102/103 SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION TOSCANO, ALICIA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Sangili et al 11176121 - (D) SMITH 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WANG, VICTOR W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte Yoshihara 10613577 - (D) McKONE 103 TEKTRONIX, INC. WANG, TED M  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Alarcon et al 10428295 - (D) PRATS 103 Becton, Dickinson and Company Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP YANG, NELSON C

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

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

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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