barker

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Arzt et al 13504390 - (D) SQUIRE 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) WEDDLE, ALEXANDER MARION

1718 Ex Parte Oh et al 14078019 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (APPLIED MATERIALS) JAVED, MIRZA ISRAR

1766 Ex Parte King et al 15409066 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 LANXESS Solutions US Inc. RODD, CHRISTOPHER M

1784 Ex Parte Jardine et al 14595079 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(2)/103 SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP RUMMEL, TIJLIA L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Gourlay et al 14457585 - (D) BARRY 112(1) Arista/CHWW A CHU, GABRIELL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Mahmood et al 10682088 - (D) CHUNG 103 Apple Inc. -- FKM ABELSON, RONALD B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2657 Ex Parte Lorenzen et al 14086827 - (D) FRAHM 101 STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER KAZEMINEZHAD, FARZAD

2677 Ex Parte Fay et al 14844584 - (D) PYONIN 112(1)/101/102/103 Zebra Technologies Corporation (Legacy) POPOVICI, DOV

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte GÖSSLING et al 13366614 - (D) SNAY 103 Jordan IP Law, LLC CARRASQUILLO, JORGE L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Espinosa et al 13343429 - (D) KERINS 102 SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY LLP LAUX, JESSICA L

3657 Ex Parte Baehrle-Miller et al 14880525 - (D) SONG 103 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP SAHNI, VISHAL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3747 Ex Parte KOSAKA et al 13928989 - (D) SILVERMAN 102/103 41.50 112(2) Squire PB (NV A/DC Office) LAGUARDA, GONZALO

3761 Ex Parte Ben-Shmuel et al 13662067 - (D) KERINS 103 41.50 112(1) Finnegan/Goji CALVETTI, FREDERICK F

That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a feature is possible is not a sufficient indication that the feature is a part of the invention. In re Barker and Pehl, 
559 F.2d 588 (CCPA 1977). 

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) 2161 , 2163

3762 Ex Parte MINAMISAKO 14338468 - (D) PESLAK 103 POSZ LAW GROUP, PLC NAMAY, DANIEL ELLIOT

3792 Ex Parte Nielsen et al 14694095 - (D) GREENHUT 103 MEDTRONIC, INC. (NEURO/MRG) LEVICKY, WILLIAM J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1771 Ex Parte MOREL et al 14974313 - (D) WILSON 103 112(2) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. BOYER, RANDY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2196 Ex Parte Shani et al 14787380 - (D) BUSCH 103 103 ENTIT SOFTWARE LLC KIM, SISLEY NAHYUN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Lessin 14923365 - (D) REPKO 103 OTDP Facebook/Fenwick SCOTT, RANDY A

2489 Ex Parte Müller 14379593 - (D) RAEVSKY 103 103 RATNERPRESTIA HODGES, SUSAN E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2691 Ex Parte Yoon et al 15293415 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 112(2) The Belles Group, P.C. SHEN,YUZHEN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2886 Ex Parte Gorschboth et al 14368609 - (D) NAGUMO 103 102/103 41.50 112(1) ALCON LEE, HWA S

3623 Ex Parte Liu et al 13799466 - (D) LORIN 101/103 101 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L GILLS, KURTIS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Wiseman et al 14037524 - (D) BAYAT 112(1) 112(1) CGD Legal Services, P.C. d/b/a Darrow Mustafa PC SPATZ, ABBY M

3783 Ex Parte Farra 13595492 - (D) DOUGAL 103 103 Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Sharp et al 13128800 - (D) GRIMES 112(2)/103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP SIMMONS, CHRIS E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Larson et al 13604568 - (D) SQUIRE 103 ROBERT L. McDOWELL ZHANG, HAI Y

1718 Ex Parte Koizumi et al 13774037 - (D) HEANEY 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP YU, YUECHUAN

1741 Ex Parte Tamamura et al 14422472 - (D) BEST 103 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. HOFFMANN, JOHN M

1747 Ex Parte Clarke et al 13701706 - (D) SQUIRE 103 FLYNN THIEL, P.C. MAYES, DIONNE WALLS

1789 Ex Parte Hossan et al 14132672 - (D) SNAY 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - SABIC (NORYL) WORRELL, KEVIN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Stevens et al 13606775 - (D) PINKERTON 103 101 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (United Parcel Service, Inc.) JONES, HUGH M

2167 Ex Parte KRISHNA 14225714 - (D) BENNETT 103 101/103 Baker Botts LLP/CA Technologies RAYYAN, SUSANF

2194 Ex Parte ALARI et al 14791612 - (D) REPKO 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. I LEAR CORPORATION MACASIANO, JOANNE GONZALES

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte Mani et al 14485482 - (D) POTHIER 103 Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (ImgTec) LUO, ANTHONY L

2484 Ex Parte Appia et al 14322887 - (D) REPKO 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED BRANIFF, CHRISTOPHER

2486 Ex Parte GEHRING et al 13918153 - (D) FENICK 103 NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER LEE, JIMMY S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Tison et al 14304176 - (D) BUSCH 103 PANDUIT CORP. WANG, YI

2646 Ex Parte Xiao et al 14501725 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Treyz Law Group KELLEY, STEVEN SHAUN

2674 Ex Parte Romano et al 14467783 - (D) KUMAR 101 Verint Systems, Inc. Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC MISHRA, RICHA

2684 Ex Parte Shamasundar et al 14721576 - (D) BAIN 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG ALIZADA, OMEED

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Aggarwal et al 14604660 - (D) WILSON 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED HOANG, TUAN A

2824 Ex Parte Torsi 14337989 - (D) WILSON 103 OTDP Dorsey & Whitney LLP-IP Dept.-MTI KING, DOUGLAS

2872 Ex Parte Robinson 14074897 - (D) BUSCH 103 Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co., LPA LEI, JIE

2872 Ex Parte SIECKMANN et al 14410263 - (D) SNAY 103 Patentbar International PC LEI, JIE

2875 Ex Parte Orozco et al 14259936 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 HOWSON & HOWSON LLP GYLLSTROM, BRYON T

2883 Ex Parte Ciechomski et al 13014229 - (D) HOUSEL 103 CORNING INCORPORATED JORDAN, ANDREW

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Hyde et al 13728843 - (D) BUSCH 112(1) 101/103 Behmke Innovation Group LLC SITTNER, MICHAEL J

3622 Ex Parte Simmons et al 13537991 - (D) BUSCH 112(1) 101/103 Behmke Innovation Group LLC SITTNER, MICHAEL J

3626 Ex Parte Moore et al 13861525 - (D) BUSCH 101 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU) COBANOGLU, DILEK B

3626 Ex Parte Janevski et al 13976170 - (D) PYONIN 101 41.50 112(1) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS GILLIGAN, CHRISTOPHER L

3664 Ex Parte Dickinson et al 10974335 - (D) BAYAT 112(2)/101/103 Nixon Peabody LLP NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI

3669 Ex Parte Liu et al 13795450 - (D) BROWN 101 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L ROBERSON, JASON R

3669 Ex Parte Lippman et al 14630177 - (D) GREENHUT 112(2)/103 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL HUTCHINSON, ALAND

3671 Ex Parte Perruso 13086727 - (D) GREENHUT 103 112(2) 41.50 112(1)/112(2) MCHALE & SLAVIN, P.A. NGUYEN, MAI T

3683 Ex Parte Moll 13327917 - (D) MORGAN 101/103 Jordan IP Law (IBM - SVL) HATCHER, DEIRDRE D

3686 Ex Parte Boehlke 12025154 - (D) SHAW 103 101/102/103 IP Strategies LAM, ELIZA ANNE

3689 Ex Parte Gabrysch et al 13816762 - (D) HAMANN 112(2) 103 STINSON LLP GLENNIE, DEBRA L

3691 Ex Parte WEINFLASH et al 13326055 - (D) SILVERMAN 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP VYAS, ABHISHEK

3697 Ex Parte Asher et al 13958935 - (D) ENGLE 112(2)/103 101/OTDP CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. APPLE, KIRSTEN SACHWITZ

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte WEEKS et al 14069887 - (D) WOODS 103 112(2) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP JOLLY, ONEKKI P

3741 Ex Parte Qiu et al 14974112 - (D) GREENHUT 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY CHENG, STEPHANIE S

3745 Ex Parte Stein et al 14061169 - (D) FITZPATRICK 112(2)/102/103 Hoffman Warnick LLC LAMBERT, WAYNE A

3771 Ex Parte Harks et al 14114214 - (D) WARNER 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LOUIS, RICHARD G

3782 Ex Parte Vissapragada Venkata Satya et al 14351203 - (D) FITZPATRICK 102 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS HEFFNER, NED T

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Musgrove et al 14932058 - (D) HOFF OTDP Rimon PC SYED, FARHAN M

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2879 Ex parte TELEBRANDS CORP. Ex Parte 9869459 et al 15/280,315 90014067 - (D) MARTIN 112(1)/112(2) 112(2)/103 COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP HUGHES, DEANDRA M original QUARTERMAN, KEVIN J

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex parte AIR LIQUIDE LARGE INDUSTRIES U.S. LP, Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 9109418 et al 90013913 - (R) DERRICK 103 American Air Liquide FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP TILL, TERRENCE R original LAWRENCE JR, FRANK M

tronzo, lockwood, barker, winkhaus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Chang et al 13438099 - (D) GARRIS 103 AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP KHAN, TAHSEEN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte DeBoer et al 13969768 - (D) DENNETT 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION HOFFBERG, ROBERT JOSEPH

2892 Ex Parte Bergenek et al 13516848 - (D) KRATZ 103 IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US) HUBER, ROBERT T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Taylor 13625550 - (D) SNAY 103 SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS MICHENER, BLAKE E

3693 Ex Parte Dwyer et al 13833602 - (D) CRAWFORD 101/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP WARDEN, MICHAEL J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Eckerbom et al 13063648 - (D) SMITH 103 KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP AGAHI, PUYA

3762 Ex Parte Hunt et al 13377905 - (D) KORNICZKY 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ALTER MORSCHAUSER, ALYSSA MARGO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Tibbetts et al 14484897 - (D) GUEST 103 112(1)/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY LEE, DOUGLAS

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Heman et al 13417204 - (D) SHIANG 102 112(2) DLA PIPER LLP (US ) YEN, SYLING

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Kramer et al 12696267 - (D) HASTINGS 103 112(1) Schlumberger Technology Center SCHINDLER, DAVID M

A disclosure that merely renders the later-claimed subject matter obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its 
limitations. Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that [the] step is part of appellants’ invention.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 640 (CCPA 1975)).

Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 211.05 , 2163 , 2163.03 , 2163.05

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2133.03(a) , 2163 , 2163.02

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) 2161 , 2163

Winkhaus, In re, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975) 2173.05(q)

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Lifson et al 12447728 - (D) BROWNE 103 103/double patenting CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. ATKISSON, JIANYING CUI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte LIU et al 13189992 - (D) KENNEDY 103 Moser Taboada / Applied Materials, Inc. WITTENBERG, STEFANIE S

1764 Ex Parte Fricke et al 13515139 - (D) DELMENDO 103/double patenting OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. RIETH, STEPHEN EDWARD

1788 Ex Parte RODEWALD et al 14330688 - (D) ROSS 103 Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, PA DESAI, ANISH P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Satish et al 13742218 - (D) McMILLIN 103 SYMANTEC/ FENWICK PEREZ-ARROYO, RAQUEL

2178 Ex Parte KIM et al 13303428 - (D) PYONIN 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Jefferson IP Law, LLP ROY, SANCHITA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2659 Ex Parte Grokop et al 14186730 - (D) ENGLE 101 103/double patenting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm THOMAS-HOMESCU, ANNE L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Kormann 13704315 - (D) BUSCH 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Jordan IP Law, LLC POLAY, ANDREW

3632 Ex Parte Carnevali 12799659 - (D) ENGELS 102 Charles J. Rupnick DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY

3638 Ex Parte Groetzner et al 14009578 - (D) CALVE 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. GRABOWSKI, KYLE ROBERT

3651 Ex Parte Giammanco 14121475 - (D) CUTITTA 102/103 Law Offices of Gregory B. Beggs RANDALL, JR., KELVIN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Ast et al 12827510 - (D) SONG 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY STANEK, KELSEY L

3763 Ex Parte Christian et al 13091552 - (D) O’HANLON 103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC (STJ) MEDWAY, SCOTT J

loughlin, barker, lockwood

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Lee et al 11169430 - (D) HOELTER 102 Mark P. Levy Thompson Hine LLP WENDELL, MARK R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Eichberger et al 10566033 - (D) BROWNE 103 LEYDIG, VOIT AND MAYER VAN, QUANG T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte James et al 11594600 - (D) KIMLIN 102 102/103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION BEST, ZACHARY P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Chen et al 10815233 - (D) MORGAN 103 103 Greg Goshorn, P.C. JACOB, MARY C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Toppo 11491718 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP KIM, JENNIFER M

1634 Ex Parte Lutz et al 10927669 - (D) ADAMS 103 Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. BAUSCH, SARAE L

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Garner et al 10521225 - (D) METZ 112(1)/102/103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP CANO, MILTON I

1772 Ex Parte Gjerde et al 10921010 - (D) HASTINGS 103 PHYNEXUS, INC. JARRETT, LORE RAMILLANO

1781 Ex Parte Bechtold et al 10961654 - (D) McKELVEY 103 KAGAN BINDER, PLLC BADR, HAMID R

We have considered applicant’s remaining arguments and find none that warrant reversal of the Examiner’s rejection based on Hansen, Søe and the European Patent Application. Cf. Loughlin v. Ling, 103 USPQ2d 1413 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

1786 Ex Parte McManus 11398786 - (D) GARRIS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CLARK, GREGORY D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Blakey et al 10961410 - (D) EVANS 103 Accenture/Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP WILSON, KIMBERLY LOVEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Suzuki 10953326 - (D) POTHIER 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

2485 Ex Parte Shibata et al 11326203 - (D) DILLON 103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LEE, Y YOUNG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Schroeder 09994634 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PHAM, TUAN

We are mindful that the question of written description support should not be confused with the question of what would have been obvious to the artisan. Whether one skilled in the art would find the instantly claimed invention obvious in view of the disclosure is not an issue in the “written description” inquiry. In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977). A description which renders obvious the invention for which the benefit of an earlier date is sought is not sufficient. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Kanflod et al 10539148 - (D) MEDLEY 112(1)/112(2)/103 Mark P. Stone MACARTHUR, VICTOR L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Gavin 10873066 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Lewis and Roca LLP MCCULLOCH JR, WILLIAM H

3731 Ex Parte Wyman et al 10679438 - (D) ADAMS 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP SONNETT, KATHLEEN C

3742 Ex Parte Collins et al 11047348 - (D) HORNER 103 SUMMA, ADDITON & ASHE, P.A. VAN, QUANG T

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3761 The Procter and Gamble Company Requester v. Playtex Products, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001415 6923789 10/081,528 GUEST 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original CHAPMAN, GINGER T  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 ZUND SYSTEMTECHNIK AG & ZUND AMERICA, INC. Requester v. Patent of MIKKELSEN GRAPHIC ENGINEERING, INC. Patent Owner 95001354 6,672,187 10/087,626 LEBOVITZ 102/103 JANSSON, SHUPE & MUNGER, LTD DAWSON, GLENN K original ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER

barker, ohshiro, sivaramakrishnan, saunders

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Skraly et al 11/072,735 MILLS 103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Hou 10/716,529 HOFF 102(b) BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP c/o CPA Global EXAMINER AHMED, SALMAN

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/034,224 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MILORD, MARCEAU

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Saltykov et al 11/386,063 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER SAN MARTIN, EDGARDO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Shenoy et al 11/070,398 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER PUTTLITZ, KARL J
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2876 Ex Parte 6,164,533 et al Ex parte Barton Patent 533 LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,064 TURNER concurring Easthom 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: MEL BARNES CAPITAL LEGAL GROUP, LLC EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K original EXAMINER LEE, MICHAEL GUNYOUNG

“That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that that step is part of appellants' invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of §112.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977). An amendment to a claim which further limits its scope to a species not explicitly disclosed, although covered by the scope of the generic claim, does not comply with the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Ex parte Ohshiro, 14 USPQ 2d 1750 (BPAI 1989).

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1651 Ex Parte 6372460 et al Ex parte MARTEK BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION Appellant 90/010,464 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, PLLC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER WEBER, JON P
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Koverech et al 11/649,796 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M

1638 Ex Parte Sticklen 11/489,234 WALSH 103(a) Ian C. McLeod McLeod & Moyne, P.C. EXAMINER PAGE, BRENT T

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Ohnstad et al 11/411,688 FRANKLIN 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) JON M. DICKINSON, P.C. EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1761 Ex Parte Somerville Roberts et al 11/788,068 NAGUMO 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

In a similar circumstance, the predecessor to our reviewing court remarked, “the fact remains that one of ordinary skill informed by the teachings of [the reference] would not have had to choose judiciously from a genus of possible combinations of resin and salt to obtain the very subject matter to which appellant’s composition per se claims are directed.” In re Sivaramakrishnan, 673 F.2d 1383, 1385 (CCPA 1982) (finding, in that case, anticipation of the claimed compound).

1763 Ex Parte Klesczewski et al 12/070,614 McKELVEY 102(b) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Yuen 11/021,478 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(b)/103(a) ROPES & GRAY LLP EXAMINER COLAN, GIOVANNA B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2472 Ex Parte Sayeed 09/795,726 FRAHM non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHI HO A

See Saunders Group, Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d, 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (stating that where a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, the doctrine of claim differentiation supports the inference that the independent claim encompasses subject matter which does not include the added limitation).

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Suelzle et al 10/848,226 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI

boehringer, stencel, Jung, tiffin, joy technologies, huang, cable, standish, ariad, reiffin, lockwood, barker, vas-cath

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Thastrup et al 10/072,036 GREEN 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) Workman Nydegger EXAMINER BURKHART, MICHAEL D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Desai et al 10/288,126 TIMM 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Cabillic et al 11/186,036 JEFFERY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kim 10/216,875 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2451 Ex Parte McDougall et al 10/284,966 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Lilleness et al 10/287,337 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER PHAM, TAMMY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Robinson et al 11/265,364 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHARIFZADA, ALI R

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Krafft et al 11/100,212 GRIMES 102(b) Jane Massey Licata, Esquire Licata & Tyrrell P.C. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Muller et al 11/040,270 COURTENAY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER TANK, ANDREW L

We also broadly but reasonably construe the “configured to render an arrangement . . . .” language of claim 1 as a statement of intended use or purpose. (emphasis added) “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim's preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02
...
See In re Jung, No. 2010-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 at 7 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(“Jung argues that the Board gave improper deference to the examiner’s rejection by requiring Jung to‘identif[y] a reversible error’ by the examiner, which improperly shifted the burden of proving patentability onto Jung. Decision at 11. This is a hollow argument, because, as discussed above, the examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation and the burden was properly shifted to Jung to rebut it. . . . ‘[R]eversible error’ means that the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong . . . .”).

2192 Ex Parte Bagley et al 10/852,908 BARRY 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BUI, HANH THI MINH
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/026,043 MacDONALD 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER KIM, JUNG W
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lindskog 10/502,018 SAADAT 103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Bodine et al 10/943,795 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DURAND, PAUL R

Objective evidence of non-obviousness, including commercial success, must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 197 1) (evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). In order to be commensurate in scope with the claims, the commercial success must be due to claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features. Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 229 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226, 228 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Features responsible for commercial success were recited only in allowed dependent claims, and therefore the evidence of commercial success was not commensurate in scope with the broad claims at issue.). An inventor’s opinion as to the purchaser’s reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus between the sales and the claimed invention. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence as to market share, Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27 (Fed. Cir. 1985), or as to the time period during which the product was sold, or as to what sales would normally be expected in the market, Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454, 1458 (BPAI 1988).

Tiffin, In re, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04, 2142

Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp 225, 17 USPQ2d 1257 (D.D.C. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.03(a)

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . 716.03(b), 716.06, 1504.03

Standish, Ex parte, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) .716.03(a), 716.03(b), 2138.01
3738 Ex Parte Calandruccio et al 10/842,030 BAHR 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D

3772 Ex Parte Masini 10/872,717 O’NEILL 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PATEL, TARLA R

[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. . . . [T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed. . . . This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.

Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). See also Vas-Cath at 1563-64.

New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. Written description support can be either express or inherent, and is determined from the disclosure considered as a whole. Reiffin v. Microsoft, 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That one of ordinary skill in the art might see the scenario asserted by Appellant as possible within the context of the description in Appellant’s Specification is insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See, e.g., Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Wohnsiedler, 315 F.2d 934, 937 (CCPA 1963). See also In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977):

That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that [the] step is part of appellants’ invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of § 112.

Precisely how close the original description must come to comply with the description requirement must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The primary consideration is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure. See Vas-Cath at 1561-63.

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163