aristocrat

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Yang et al 12417974 - (D) PINKERTON 102/103 DELIZIO LAW, PLLC IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DL) MUELLER, KURT A

2158 Ex Parte JUNG et al 12025260 - (D) KRIVAK 102 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC BOCCIO, VINCENT F

2181 Ex Parte Tasler 11467092 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 The Meola Firm, PLLC LEE, CHUN KUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Kirshenbaum 12243896 - (D) KRIVAK 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY VAUGHAN, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte BROWN et al 12354739 - (D) FETTING 101/102/103 GRIFFITHS & SEATON PLLC (IBM) LUBIN, VALERIE

3651 Ex Parte Ouellette et al 13354668 - (D) REIMERS 102/103 Evans & Dixon, LLC SINGH, KAVEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Worrick 13211788 - (D) SMEGAL 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MICHALSKI, SEAN M

3744 Ex Parte Dalla Valle et al 11921957 - (D) WARNER 112(1)/112(2)/103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC DUKE, EMMANUEL E

3744 Ex Parte Shelton 12980493 - (D) STEPINA 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC ABDUR RAHIM, AZIM

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Chen et al 12196771 - (D) KRATZ 102/103 102/103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Anderson et al 12158855 - (D) BAHR 103 102/103 41.50 112(2) NIXON PEABODY LLP HALL, SHAUNA-KAY N

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12460252 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/103/double patenting INTELLECTUAL VENTURES - ISF HARWARD, SOREN T

A module is an undefined structure that does not inform one of ordinary skill in the art what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function.  Nor does a "computer processor" provide the requisite structure.  Our reviewing court has made clear that the corresponding structure for performing a specific function is required to be more than a simple general purpose computer or microprocessor.  See, e.g., Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function, and then to disclose only a general purpose computer or microprocessor as the structure designed to perform that function, amounts to pure functional claiming.  Id.  The structure corresponding to the means for a computer implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification.  Id.  Here, Appellants merely refer to modules that may include a computer processor but do not disclose any algorithm for performing the claimed function.

Aristocrat Technologies Australia PTY Ltd. v. International Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 2181

1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12584129 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/103/double patenting Constellation Law Group, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

1647 Ex Parte Kang et al 11867290 - (D) ADAMS 112(1) 102 ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC ALLEN, MARIANNE P

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Mirto et al 12312437 - (D) ROESEL 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ROGERS, MARTIN K

1761 Ex Parte Kramer et al 13137163 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 BRUCE ELLIOT KRAMER OGDEN JR, NECHOLUS

1783 Ex Parte Sogard et al 12012919 - (D) SMITH 103 Vidas, Arrett & Steinkraus Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. VAN SELL, NATHAN L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Ivanov et al 11447790 - (D) KRIVAK 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP RIEGLER, PATRICK F

2162 Ex Parte Scarboro 12561914 - (D) McMILLIN 103 BOCKHOP & ASSOCIATES, LLC NGUYEN, PHONG H

2164 Ex Parte Winkler et al 11647194 - (D) KRIVAK 102 SAP SE GEBRESENBET, DINKU W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Landry et al 11541258 - (D) ENGELS 102/103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. BUI, JONATHAN A

2463 Ex Parte McKINNEY et al 12433922 - (D) SHAW 103 CAREFUSION C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S

2658 Ex Parte Conwell et al 13187178 - (D) TROCK 102/103 DIGIMARC CORPORATION DORVIL, RICHEMOND

2684 Ex Parte Amtmann 11815208 - (D) SMITH 103 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing KING, CURTIS J

2689 Ex Parte Desai et al 12042358 - (D) MCMILLIN 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. JIANG, YONG HANG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Pyhalammi et al 11453146 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. HOAR, COLLEEN A

3687 Ex Parte Erickson et al 12130973 - (D) FETTING 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG HAYLES, ASHFORD S

3694 Ex Parte Boyle et al 12285063 - (D) FETTING 103 41.50 103 Johnson, Marcou & Isaacs, LLC ABDI, KAMBIZ

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 CARDIOCOM LLC. and MEDTRONIC, INC. Requester and Respondent v. ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7941327 et al 11/004,135 95002199 - (D) HOFF 103 Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: MERCHANT & GOULD PC ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original GILLIGAN, CHRISTOPHER L

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2873 APPLE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. INTERVAL LICENSING LLC Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte FREIBERGER et al 6,778,314 10/380,044 95001577 - (D) WEINBERG 103 102/103 EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, P.L.L.C. original BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP Hughes, Deandra original HANIG, RICHARD E

lakkala, MIT2, aristocrat

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Roberts et al 11510386 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 VERIZON KUMAR, ANIL N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Telesco 11763556 - (D) WIEDER 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2843 Ex Parte HSIEH et al 12831255 - (D) WILSON 102(e) McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP CHANG, JOSEPH

2881 Ex Parte Wohlgemuth et al 12017820 - (D) BEST 102/103 Tucker Ellis LLP Brainlab AG IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

2882 Ex Parte MUENSTER et al 12906437 - (D) HASTINGS 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(b) Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. ARTMAN, THOMAS R

Additionally, we construe “an evaluation unit . . . that has software . . . configured to” perform various functions, as recited in independent claim 2, as a “means-plus-function” limitation subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, and conclude that the Specification’s failure to disclose an algorithm corresponding to the recited functions renders the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (see, e.g., Ex parte Lakkala, 2013 WL 1341108, *2 (PTAB 2013) (informative), where the PTAB held that “a processor . . . configured . . .to” perform various functions is a means-plus-function limitation). Likewise claim 1’s “carrying out a material detection” step is construed as “step-plus-function” limitation, and is similarly indefinite.

This limitation does not include the word “means,” thus a rebuttable presumption exists that this limitation is not a means-plus-function limitation. Mass. Inst. of Tech. & Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2006). This presumption can be overcome, however, if the limitation “fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) That is the case here. ...

In light of this conclusion, we next consider whether Appellants’ written description contains corresponding structure for the “evaluation unit” limitation. Cf. Aristocrat Techs Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In computer-implemented inventions such as
the one at issue, the corresponding structure must include an “algorithm that transforms [a] general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.” Id. at 1338 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted.)

Aristocrat Technologies Australia PTY Ltd. v. International Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 2181

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Spera et al 11553546 - (D) POLLOCK 102(e)/102/103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago Baxter LEE, WENG WAH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Rovinski et al 12233021 - (D) MILLS dissenting-in-part JENKS 103 103 SIM & MCBURNEY PARAS JR, PETER

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Fukui et al 10363039 - (D) NAGUMO 103 KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK WALLS, CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Kozlov et al 11830791 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FAN, SHIOW-JY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Chung et al 11767820 - (D) HANLON 102/103 ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP THOMAS, KIMBERLY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Deal et al 10902492 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BGL/Cook - Chicago HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

3763 Ex Parte Van Den Bossche et al 13575028 - (D) CHERRY 103 Symbus Law Group, LLC SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

3768 Ex Parte Goodwin 11012573 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 Pabst Patent Group LLP BOR, HELENE CATHERINE

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte KAMPER et al 12212149 - (D) OWENS 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 John A. O'Toole WILLIAMS, LELA

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Lin 11680193 - (D) SMITH 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC PENG, HUAWEN A

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
1205 Ex parte APP PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appellant Ex Parte 5670524 et al 08/256,319 90011068 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 112(2)/102/103 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: NAVINTA LLC CAMPELL, BRUCE R original HENLEY III, RAYMOND J

Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 Ex parte APP PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appellant Ex Parte 5,834,489 et al 08/851,062 90011069 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP PATENT OWNER: DLA PIPER LLP (US) THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ROTHWELL. FIGG. ERNST & MANBECK. P.C. CAMPELL, BRUCE R original HENLEY III, RAYMOND J

1636 Ex parte THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION Appellant Ex Parte 6,114,148 C1 et al 08/717,294 90012334 - (D) JENKS 102 CLARK & ELBING LLP PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original SHUMAN, JON D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 PG DRIVES TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester v. LAUTZENHISER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6,426,600 et al 09/802,823 95001471 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 Valenti, Hanley & Robinson, PLLC Third Party Requester: PG Drives Technology, Inc. WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original IP, SHIK LUEN PAUL

nuijten, chakrabarty, ferguson2, gottschalk, miller2, aristocrat, function media, finisar

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Lorentsen et al 10553869 - (D) PRATS 103 HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. SWOPE, SHERIDAN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Schilder 10580643 - (D) KRATZ 102 SHELL OIL COMPANY MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Chan et al 10907161 - (D) HUGHES 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NOFAL, CHRISTOPHER P

2161 Ex Parte Elsaesser et al 11168551 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP NGUYEN, CINDY

2193 Ex Parte Eichenberger et al 10919005 - (D) HUGHES 103 IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) WANG, JUE S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Ross et al 10371338 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 37 CFR 41.40(b) 112(2) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED NGUYEN, THUONG

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Chow et al 11265918 - (D) SCHEINER 112(1)/103 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Zilbershtein et al 11482608 - (D) MOORE 103 103 AVAYA, Inc. Cochran Freund & Young GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Facemire et al 11083913 - (D) HOFF 102/103 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC DASGUPTA, SOUMYA

Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories:

i. transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se), In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2007);

ii. a naturally occurring organism, Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308;

iii. a human per se, The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011);

iv. a legal contractual agreement between two parties, see In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cert. denied);

v. a game defined as a set of rules;

vi. a computer program per se, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72;

vii. a company, Ferguson, 558 F.3d at 1366; and

viii. a mere arrangement of printed matter, In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396, 164 USPQ 46, ___ (CCPA 1969).

MPEP 2106

Nuijten, In re, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2106, 2107.01

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980) , 2103, 2105, 2106, 2107.01

Ferguson,In re, 558 F.3d 1359, 90 USPQ2d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 2106

Miller, In re, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969) 706.03(a), 2106,

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Kelly et al 10540597 - (D) ZECHER 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS CHOKSHI, PINKAL R

2443 Ex Parte Bravery et al 10555433 - (D) HUGHES 103 101/103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC SHIN, KYUNG H

2452 Ex Parte Dresden 10776689 - (D) HUGHES 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP NGUYEN, THU V

2456 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11168650 - (D) McKONE 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP CHANG, TOM Y

2456 Ex Parte Newton et al 10598988 - (D) MOORE 112(2) 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MCADAMS, BRAD

For a computer-implemented claim limitation interpreted under § 112, sixth paragraph, the corresponding structure must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or processor disclosed in the specification into the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google Inc, 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform the general purpose computer or processor to a special purpose processor programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Id. at 1338. An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary 23 (5th ed. 2002). An applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or “in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

An indefiniteness rejection under § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or processor. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38. Mere reference to a general purpose computer or processor with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or to “software” without providing detail about the means to accomplish the software function is not an adequate disclosure. Id. at 1334; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41. In addition, simply reciting the claimed function in the specification, while saying nothing about how the computer or processor ensures that those functions are performed, is not a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

If the specification explicitly discloses an algorithm, the sufficiency of the disclosure must be determined in light of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337. The specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose processor to a special purpose processor so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Id. at 1338.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Moss et al 11553671 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BAHL, SANGEETA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Swanson et al 11527188 - (D) KILE 112(1)/112(2)/103 PRATT & WHITNEY CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS c/o CPA Global KIM, TAE JUN

3752 Ex Parte Roreger et al 10534797 - (D) DeFRANCO 103 Frommer Lawrence & Haug HWU, DAVIS D  

REEXAMINATION  
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2833 Ex parte PROTECTCONNECT, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90011275 6341981 09/553,425 ARBES 102/103 DLA PIPER LLP US WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original GILMAN, ALEXANDER
 
3686 Ex Parte CAREFUSION 303, INC. Ex Parte Schlotterbeck et al 90011697 90/009,912 7,835,927 10/331,034 FITZPATRICK 102/103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP FOSTER, JIMMY G original RANGREJ, SHEETAL

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Daneshvar 11648944 - (R) FLOYD 102/103 Yousef Daneshvar, MD. FACC HICKS, VICTORIA J
 

donaldson, aristocrat, WMS, lindberg, sasse, cont'l paper bag

11976246

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte McCormick et al 11613766 - (D) SMITH 102/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC MOHADDES, LADAN

1772 Ex Parte Strack et al 11178037 - (D) PAK 103 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY NGUYEN, TAM M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Landers et al 11470825 - (D) SMITH 102/103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ZAMAN, FAISAL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Redel et al 11298779 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP COOK, CHRISTOPHER L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Oesterling et al 11206957 - (D) REIMERS 112(2)/103 103 Dierker & Associates, P.C. KISWANTO, NICHOLAS

The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 15 under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. Supp. Ans. 3-43 (citing In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) (“[I]f one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.”)). For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, the corresponding structure is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The corresponding structure for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm as well as the general purpose computer. WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The written description must at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338.

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Liebermann 10718023 - (D) FISCHETTI 102/103 102/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. ELISCA, PIERRE E

3742 Ex Parte Foster et al 11693143 - (D) CAPP 103 102/103 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. (Main) TRAN, THIEN S

3765 Ex Parte Fitzpatrick 11627792 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 Michael J. Fitzpatrick ANDERSON, AMBER R

3773 Ex Parte Schmieding et al 11775079 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Fetissova et al 11611701 - (D) SCHEINER 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY MELLER, MICHAEL V

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Fernihough et al 11869048 - (D) WARREN 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P

1715 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 10691319 - (D) SCHAFER 103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

1761 Ex Parte Trevino et al 12338014 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 SCHMEISER OLSEN & WATTS SANDERS, KRIELLION ANTIONETTE

1761 Ex Parte Trueman et al 11820613 - (D) SMITH 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY DIGGS, TANISHA

1765 Ex Parte Kurth et al 11042972 - (D) HOUSEL 103 112(1) PRICE HENEVELD LLP COONEY, JOHN M

1765 Ex Parte Vizzini et al 11508772 - (D) GARRIS 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC LU, C CAIXIA

1784 Ex Parte Morita et al 11976246 - (D) LORIN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC LANGMAN, JONATHAN C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Smilowitz et al 11483441 - (D) DILLON 101/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE LLP HOPE, DARRIN

2173 Ex Parte McLean et al 11560224 - (D) DILLON 103 IBM CORPORATION STREETS & STEELE HOPE, DARRIN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Farr et al 10831034 - (D) SMITH 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP TRAN, ELLEN C

2442 Ex Parte Jung et al 10816364 - (D) ANDERSON 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC SURVILLO, OLEG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2664 Ex Parte Moreb 11260437 - (D) HUGHES 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC CAMARGO, MARLY S.B.

The record reflects that it is common sense that a surveillance audio/video system be portable. See In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 735 (CCPA 1952) (Portability of a claimed device is insufficient to patentably distinguish the device over an otherwise old (known) device unless there are new or unexpected results.).

Lindberg, In re, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) 2144.04

2695 Ex Parte Kim et al 11038028 - (D) WARD 112(1)/103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP GIESY, ADAM

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Dai 11068225 - (D) WARD 102 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP ALMO, KHAREEM E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Akhmeteli et al 11517915 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. KREINER, MICHAEL B

In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681 (CCPA 1980) (when the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable, and the appellant must rebut this presumption with a preponderance of evidence).

Sasse, In re, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980) 716.07, 2121, 2121.02

3664 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11051383 - (D) ASTORINO 103 ABB Inc. MANCHO, RONNIE M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Beck et al 11407714 - (D) GREENHUT 103 PEARNE & GORDON LLP PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES

It has long been understood that invention is not confined to the particular form or mode described. See, e.g., Cont’l Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908).

reuter, aristocrat, katz interactive, olson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Msika 10808701 - (D) FREDMAN 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP JUSTICE, GINA CHIEUN YU

See In re Reuter, 670 F.2d 1015, 1023 (CCPA 1981) (expert's opinion on ultimate legal issue entitled to no weight).

1635 Ex Parte Bentwich 10536560 - (D) WALSH 112(2)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 ROSETTA-GENOMICS c/o POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC SHIN, DANA H

1652 Ex Parte Koizumi et al 10940026 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Sexton et al 11697695 - (D) OWENS 112(1)/103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP CHEN, KEATH T

1777 Ex Parte Kopperschmidt et al 10580869 - (D) NAGUMO 102/112(6)/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP GIONTA, ALLISON

When a claim is drawn to a computer implemented function invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, a general purpose computer is usually sufficient for the corresponding structure for performing a general computing function, but the corresponding structure for performing a specific function is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The structure needed to transform a general purpose computer into a specific purpose computer is an algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008). An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 23 (5th ed. 2002).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Adendorff et al 10663345 - (D) FETTING 103 Walder Intellectual Property Law PC PARKER, BRANDI P

3646 Ex Parte Harris et al 10529055 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Flynn et al 10245193 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C FRIDIE JR, WILLMON

3731 Ex Parte Gellman et al 10325125 - (D) SCHEINER 102/103 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Osawa et al 11286356 - (D) NAGUMO 103 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. IP, SIKYIN

1746 Ex Parte Varaprasad 12222071 - (D) GARRIS 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BLADES, JOHN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Syed et al 12817703 - (D) McKONE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL BERHANU, SAMUEL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Koyata et al 11121937 - (D) GREEN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. DO, PENSEE T

“Ordinarily 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.” In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954).
 
1649 Ex Parte SCHAEBITZ et al 11931326 - (D) PRATS 102/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. BORGEEST, CHRISTINA M
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1735 Ex Parte Burns et al 10606436 - (D) KIMLIN 112(2)/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global IP, SIKYIN

1747 Ex Parte Thielen et al 11930805 - (D) METZ 103 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1763 Ex Parte Kawaguchi et al 12520913 - (D) TIMM 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC USELDING, JOHN E

1791 Ex Parte Cupp et al 10945768 - (D) KRATZ 103 K&L Gates LLP SAYALA, CHHAYA D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Yeh et al 11285614 - (D) NEW 103 MACRONIX C/O HAYNES BEFFEL & WOLFELD LLP DUONG, KHANH B

2854 Ex Parte Schmitt 11528928 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP BANH, DAVID H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Katzman et al 11190347 - (D) FETTING 101/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ADE, OGER GARCIA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Herzog et al 10415195 - (D) GREENHUT 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

3735 Ex Parte Bauman 11516388 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. DORNA, CARRIE R

3737 Ex Parte Schwartz 10574184 - (D) GREEN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SANTOS, JOSEPH M

3763 Ex Parte Nishikawa et al 10520180 - (D) McCARTHY 103 Burns Doane Swecker & Mathis BOUCHELLE, LAURA A

aristocrat, harris2, ghuman,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Hollingsworth et al 10/795,652 WALSH 103(a) IAN C. McLEOD, P.C. 

Ex Parte Rollat et al 10/023,330 ADAMS 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Sjoberg 10/309,345 SMITH 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO

Ex Parte Weeks 10/528,610 DELMENDO 103(a) THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 

Ex Parte Bartenbach et al 10/806,232 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP 

Ex Parte Nam et al 10/374,980 KIMLIN 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM 

Ex Parte Petzoldt et al 10/934,525 NAGUMO 103(a)/provisionalobviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLANDMAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP 

Ex Parte Beutel et al 10/755,128 TIMM 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Bit-Babik et al 10/945,234 HAIRSTON 102(e) MOTOROLA, INC. 

Ex Parte Awada et al 10/845,534 THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) IBM CORP 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte McGowan et al 10/632,072 HAIRSTON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Andreason 09/898,480 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

Ex Parte Chen et al 11/121,877 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Bristow et al 11/618,950 GARRIS 103(a)/provisional obviousness-type double patenting CANTOR COLBURN, LLP 

Ex Parte Bristow et al2 10/805,760 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Sonkin et al 10/872,633 SIU Concurring JEFFERY 112(2)/101/102(e) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Brabson et al 10/045,556 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION 

The Federal Circuit has stated that simply disclosing a general purpose computer as the structure to perform the claimed function does not meet the corresponding structure requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 sixth paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333. Rather, "the corresponding structure for a § 112 paragraph 6 claim for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification." Id (citing Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). 

2600 Communications

Ex Parte Fritz et al 10/307,680 HOFF 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 

Ex Parte Marvit et al 10/807,561 EASTHOM 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 

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

Ex Parte Bunker 10/089,011 STAICOVICI 103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC 

Consistent with the holding in BPAI precedential opinion Ex Parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008), Appellant may not reserve arguments for some later time. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 (c)(1)(vii)(2009).