custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte JEONG et al 12720430 - (D) JEFFERY 251/112(2) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP SEFCHECK, GREGORY B
These conversions from active steps to functional language effectively broaden the patented apparatus claims to merely require that the recited apparatus elements (e.g., “connection manager,” “classifier,” “service manager,” etc.) are capable of performing the intended function—not that they actually perform that function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the present reissue application is effectively a broadening reissue application.
Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02, 2112, 2114
...
In any event, corrections to claims via reissue to avoid potential indefiniteness have been judicially sanctioned, albeit in another context, to avoid having to rely on implication or litigation. See In re Altenpohl, 500 F.2d 1151, 1156-57 (CCPA 1974) (“Lack of antecedent basis in a claim could render it invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and . . . a patentee should be allowed to correct an error or ambiguity in a claim without having to rely on implication or litigation.” (emphases added)).
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Ng et al 11742563 - (D) CALVE 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MCCLAIN, GERALD
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2671 Ex Parte Damera-Venkata 10698895 - (D) POTHIER 103 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY VO, QUANG N
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ali et al 11437466 - (D) DIXON 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global PHILLIPS, FORREST M
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Pechtold et al 10843013 - (D) HOFFMANN 102 102/103 Quinn Law Group, PLLC PETTITT, JOHN F
3777 Ex Parte BLUMHOFER et al 11548848 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 102 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP REMALY, MARK DONALD
3777 Ex Parte Benndorf et al 11724657 - (D) WALSH 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte DiLorenzo 11159842 - (D) FREDMAN 103/obviousness-type double patenting NEUROVISTA / SHAY GLENN SIMS, JASON M
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1758 Ex Parte Bianchi 10806710 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1)/103 HUGH P. GORTLER MERSHON, JAYNE L
1791 Ex Parte Jani et al 11415044 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting Hoffmann & Baron LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Gonzalez 11064490 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 Carlos Gonzalez TELAN, MICHAEL R
2461 Ex Parte Lauber 11757583 - (D) ZECHER 103 Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc. MIAN, OMER S
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Dale et al 10340290 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) DANNEMAN, PAUL
3656 Ex Parte Gaechter 10524298 - (D) GREENHUT 103 EGBERT LAW OFFICES PILKINGTON, JAMES
The USPTO bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a prima facie case of obviousness in a product-by-process situation because of its peculiar nature. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974) 2113
Marosi, In re, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 706.02(m), 2111.01, 2113, 2173.05(b)
3671 Ex Parte Suggate 10519546 - (D) CAPP 103 Rankin, Hill & Clark LLP HARTMANN, GARY S
3682 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11712276 - (D) KIM 102/103 YAHOO! OVERTURE BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE MYHRE, JAMES W
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Morgenstern et al 10585162 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC PRAGER, JESSE M
3769 Ex Parte Odrich et al 10600027 - (D) PRATS 103 AMO / Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP SHAY, DAVID M
3788 Ex Parte Benson et al 11796384 - (D) PLENZLER 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CHU, KING M
3788 Ex Parte Busch et al 12092646 - (D) KAUFFMAN obviousness-type double patenting 102/103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA
The body of each claim describes a structurally complete invention, and if the preamble were deleted, the structure of the claimed invention would be unchanged. See Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (If the body of the claim “sets out the complete invention,” the preamble is not ordinarily treated as limiting the scope of the claim.).
