animal, santarus, inphi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Marvin et al 13808920 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS BERHANE, ADOLF D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Memmott et al 13495069 - (D) JESCHKE 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC DAVIS, SHARON M

3657 Ex Parte Reinke et al 13090872 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Walter Ottesen, P.A. MOMPER, ANNA M

3669 Ex Parte Aixala et al 13130712 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 WRB-IP LLP CASS, JEAN PAUL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Giuliani 11916066 - (D) BROWN 103 41.50 112(2) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC COMINGS, DANIEL C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte Joshi 13279174 - (D) WINSOR 103 112(1) Hewlett Packard Enterprise MORLAN, ROBERT M

We agree with the Examiner. The limitation “only” idle voice clients does not appear in the claims as originally filed, but rather was added during prosecution. Compare Spec. 5—6 (original claims), with Amendment after Final Rejection 2—5 (Jan. 26, 2015) (amended claims). The language at lines 2—3 of claim 28 recites “to send the transition management message only to voice clients that are idle and not to voice clients that are not idle” (Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added)). The ordinary meaning of “only,” which is consistent with claim 28, is “adverb ... 1 a : as a single fact or instance and nothing more or different. . . b : solely, exclusively.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 812 (10th ed. 1999). Sending a transition management message to “only” voice clients that are idle is sending the transition management message exclusively to idle voice clients, and not to voice clients that are not idle — a negative limitation.

It is well settled that negative limitations are permissible forms of expression to define the scope of a claimed invention. See generally Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 923 (Fed. Cir. 1991). But the mere absence of a positive recitation in the original disclosure is not basis to exclude the limitation. MPEP § 2173.05. Rather, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added). “The ‘reason’ required by Santarus is provided, for instance, by properly describing alternative features of the patented invention.” Inphi v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte SANTINATO et al 12886618 - (D) MEYERS 103 101 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte McCulloch et al 13252072 - (D) TOWNSEND 101/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY HARWARD, SOREN T

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Taniguchi et al 13616317 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP MALLOY, ANNA E

1768 Ex Parte BARNES et al 13937317 - (D) ROSS 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY FIGUEROA, JOHN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Sinnema et al 10559360 - (D) KERINS 112(2) 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DEXTER, CLARK F

3771 Ex Parte Fine et al 12541148 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP WOODWARD, VALERIE LYNN

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF LLC Requester, Respondent v. PPC BROADBAND, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8192237 et al 95/002,400 13/033,127 95002400 - (S) SONG 103 Barclay Damon, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC ANDUJAR, LEONARDO original CHAMBERS, TRAVIS SLOAN

animal, santarus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Hansen 12664070 - (D) GARRIS 103 FLSMIDTH MARCANTONI, PAUL D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Osterloh et al 11115068 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC HTUN, SAN A

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 INPHI CORPORATION Requester and Appellant v. NETLIST, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001381 7,532,537 11/335,875 JEFFERY 112(1)/102/103 The Law Office of Jamie Zheng, Ph.D Esq. PEIKARI, BEHZAD original SOFOCLEOUS, ALEXANDER

Here, it is undisputed that the negative limitation, “DDR chip selects that are not CAS, RAS, or bank address signals,” was added by amendment Appeal 2013-009066 during reexamination. It is likewise undisputed that this particular phrase is not expressly stated in the ’537 patent’s original disclosure.

Nevertheless, it is well settled that negative limitations are permissible forms of expression to define the scope of a claimed invention. See generally Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 923 (Fed. 
Cir. 1991). But the mere absence of a positive recitation in the original disclosure is not basis to exclude the limitation. MPEP § 2173.05. Rather, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added).

animal DONNER 6: 202; 8: 1501; 10: 418; 14: 574

animal

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Wang 10/651,305 FREDMAN 103(a) LADAS & PARRY LLP EXAMINER POLANSKY, GREGG

1633 Ex Parte Geistlich et al 10/299,008 MILLS 103(a) ROTHWELL, FIGG, EXAMINER ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. HIRIYANNA, KELAGINAMANE T

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Flaherty et al 11/276,841 METZ 103(a) Larson & Anderson, LLC EXAMINER WHITE, DENNIS MICHAEL

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Roth et al 10/514,412 BARRY 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER SINGH, HIRDEPAL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Blanchard 11/342,484 KRIVAK 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER DICKEY, THOMAS L

2833 Ex Parte Lavenuta 10/328,216 HAHN 103(a) Florek & Endres PLLC EXAMINER LEE, KYUNG S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Oslund et al 10/100,686 GRIMES 103(a) Covidien EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T

3763 Ex Parte Khieu et al 11/647,278 GRIMES 103(a) SJM/AFD-WILEY EXAMINER STIGELL, THEODORE J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte kaminsky et al 10/635,587 PERRY 103(a) 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER NAJEE-ULLAH, TARIQ S

2471 Ex Parte Raith et al 10/807,975 ZECHER 112(2) 102(e)/103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER FAROUL, FARAH

See generally Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 923 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The use of a negative limitation to define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter is a permissible form of expression.”) (citation omitted).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Deane et al 10/449,258 FETTING 103(a) 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF PETER H. PRIEST, PLLC EXAMINER WEIS, SAMUEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Thompson et al 11/454,076 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP (SF) EXAMINER MARCETICH, ADAM M

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Allardyce et al 11/588,520 GAUDETTE 103(a) John J. Piskorski Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials LLC EXAMINER WONG, EDNA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Multer et al 09/753,537 GONSALVES 102/103(a) Thomas B. Haverstock EXAMINER ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2485 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/869,632 SMITH 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER TORRENTE, RICHARD T

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Boer et al 10/621,862 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER MALEK, LEILA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Heo et al 11/227,491 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER JACKSON JR, JEROME

2858 Ex Parte Bosselmann et al 10/533,014 SMITH 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER VALONE, THOMAS F

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Sanchez-Martinez 11/576,111 ADAMS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER SIMPSON, SARAH A

3731 Ex Parte Van Wyk 10/937,210 ADAMS 103(a) SMITH PATENT CONSULTING, LLC EXAMINER SONNETT, KATHLEEN C

3733 Ex Parte CAPOTE 11/876,021 ADAMS 103(a) Medtronic, Inc. (Spinal) EXAMINER CUMBERLEDGE, JERRY

3735 Ex Parte Gordon 11/181,108 ADAMS 101/102(b) Alan G. Towner Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon EXAMINER NATNITHITHADHA, NAVIN

dunn, animal

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Daniels et al 11/244,467 MOHANTY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER GOLDMAN, MICHAEL H
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Zeng 11/473,794 HANLON 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER WANG, CHUN CHENG

Third, the Examiner explains that the comparative data contains a number of unfixed variables and “without the identities and amounts of the components being held constant systematically, the probative value of appellants’ evidence of nonobviousness is limited.” Ans. 8-9; In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439 (CCPA 1965) (cause and effect sought to be proven is lost in the welter of unfixed variables).

Dunn, In re, 349 F.2d 433, 146 USPQ 479 (CCPA 1965). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804.02

1765 Ex Parte Coffin et al 11/425,208 GARRIS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DELIO & PETERSON, LLC. EXAMINER MOORE, MARGARET G

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Litwin 10/567,717 JEFFERY 103(a) Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, QUANG N

See generally Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 923 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The use of a negative limitation to define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter is a permissible form of expression.”) (citation omitted).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Koch 10/457,882 KIM 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - SZ EXAMINER ZARE, SCOTT A