braat, berg, eli lilly, basell, emert, goodman, fallaux

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Dal 10554644 - (D) OWENS 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON CHAWLA, JYOTI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Klein 11442966 - (D) HILL 103 Daniel J. Swirsky NGUYEN, THAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Uysal et al 11498344 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RAHMAN, SABANA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Kiryati et al 10930254 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP WERNER, DAVID N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Brunner et al 11073069 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. MCDONALD, SHANTESE L

3764 Ex Parte Axelrod 11338213 - (D) SPAHN 103 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) PASTEL LAW FIRM THANH, LOAN H

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1675 Ex Parte Pohl et al 11869693 - (D) FREDMAN obviousness-type double patenting Pabst Patent Group LLP BRADLEY,CHRISTINA

“Obviousness-type double patenting is a judicially created doctrine intended to prevent improper timewise extension of the patent right by prohibiting the issuance of claims in a second patent which are not ‘patentably distinct’ from the claims of a first patent.” In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “It requires rejection of an application claim when the claimed subject matter is not patentably distinct from the subject matter claimed in a commonly owned patent.” In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Two different tests have been set forth to determine whether the claims of an application are obvious over the claims of a commonly-owned patent. The “one-way” test asks whether the application claims under examination are obvious in view of the patent claims. Berg, 140 F.3d at 1432. The one-way test is the test usually applied in obvious-type double patenting rejections. In unusual circumstances, a “two-way” test is applied in which a second question (the second “way”) is asked: whether the patent claims are obvious in view of the application claims. Id.

“The two-way test is only appropriate in the unusual circumstance where, inter alia, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is ‘solely responsible for the delay in causing the second-filed application to issue prior to the first.”’ Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 n.7 (Fed.Cir.2001) (quoting Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437); see also Basell, 547 F.3d at 1376; Emert, 124 F.3d at 1461 (applying the one-way test because the applicant “had significant control over the rate of prosecution of the application,” “was responsible for the delays in prosecution,” and “orchestrated the rate of prosecution”); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (applying the one-way test because “PTO actions did not dictate the rate of prosecution”); . . . . In short, the applicant is entitled to the narrow exception of the two-way test when the PTO is at fault for the delay that causes the improvement patent to issue prior to the basic patent.

In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Braat, In re, 937 F.2d 589, 19 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 804
Berg, In re, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 804
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 , 2144.08 , 2165 , 2165.01
Emert, In re, 124 F.3d 1458, 44 USPQ2d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 804
Goodman, In re, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 804 , 806.04(i) , 1504.06 , 2164.06(b) , 2164.08

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Benevides et al 11573314 - (D) SMITH 103 Waters Technologies Corporation ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte Holley et al 11402648 - (D) SHIANG 103 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP TSENG, CHENG YUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Vagnati 11828490 - (D) SAADAT 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. VU, NGOC K

2426 Ex Parte Allport 10250150 - (D) STRAUSS 102 PIONEER NORTH AMERICA, INC. PENG, HSIUNGFEI POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original MEI, XU

2456 Ex Parte Ahmed et al 11804463 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. MCKENZIE, MARCUS A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Zikria et al 11280104 - (D) SCHEINER 103 EVELYN M. SOMMER FRONDA, CHRISTIAN L

2622 Ex Parte Chen et al 11228824 - (D) EVANS 102/103 LIU & LIU HICKS, CHARLES V

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Soyano 12232839 - (D) GARRIS 103 KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP GUPTA, RAJ R

2875 Ex Parte Karman et al 12091592 - (D) GARRIS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DZIERZYNSKI, EVAN P

2885 Ex Parte North 11925674 - (D) HASTINGS 101 obviousness-type double patenting GREG L. MARTINEZ MACCHIAROLO, LEAH SIMONE

2891 Ex Parte Bedell et al 12472943 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP SLUTSKER, JULIA

2893 Ex Parte Berman et al 11012838 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP RODELA, EDUARDO A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Haggard et al 11355813 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. POON, ROBERT

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Wei 10394137 - (D) EVANS 103 GARRETT IP, LLC C/O CPA Global NEGIN, RUSSELL SCOTT

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 APPLE COMPUTER INC. Requester v. MPMAN.COM, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000278 7065417 10/059,777 BLANKENSHIP 103 "LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY Third Party Requester: Novak, Druce & Quigg, LLP

katz, basell, vogel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Atanasoska et al 11855499 - (D) PRATS 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) AL-AWADI, DANAH J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Wiercinski 11314325 - (D) McKELVEY 103 W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Martin 11850571 - (D) MARTIN 103 Rutan & Tucker, LLP. REDMAN, JERRY E

3665 Ex Parte Takamatsu 10991858 - (D) KERINS 112(1)/103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC NGUYEN, CHUONG P

Reliance on this statement in arriving at the conclusion that the claims would have been obvious is improper, as it amounts to using Appellant’s own disclosure in the present application against him. See In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450 (CCPA 1982).

Katz, In re, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982) 715.01(c), 716.10, 804, 2132, 2132.01, 2133, 2136.05, 2137, 2138.02

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Zawacki et al 11874447 - (D) BONILLA 103 Rutan & Tucker, LLP. PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Son 11730697 - (D) GARRIS 103 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1308 Ex parte Hitachi Metals, Ltd., Patent Owner and Appellant 90010759 5645651 08/485,183 ROBERTSON 102/obviousness-type double patenting obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b) 103 obviousness-type double patenting BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP JOHNSON, JERRY D original YEE, DEBORAH

If the same invention is not being claimed twice, a second question must be asked. The second analysis question is: Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention disclosed and claimed in the patent? In considering the question, the patent disclosure may not be used as prior art. This does not mean that the disclosure may not be used at all. . . . As pointed out above, in certain instances it may be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of terms in a claim. It may also be used as required to answer the second analysis question above. . . . It must be noted that this use of the disclosure is not in contravention of the cases forbidding its use as prior art, nor is it applying the patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 103, since only the disclosure of the invention claimed in the patent may be examined.

In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-442 (CCPA 1970)

In In re Basell Poliolefine Italia S.P.A., 547 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008), our reviewing court stated:

Indeed, our predecessor court stated that a patent's disclosure may be used to determine whether an application claim is merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in a patent. Vogel, 422 F.2d at 441-42. The court stated that the disclosure may be used to learn the meaning of terms and in “interpreting the coverage of [a] claim.” Id. at 441. It may also be used to answer the question whether claims merely define an obvious variation of what is earlier disclosed and claimed.

Basell, 547 F.3d at 1378.

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804, 804.01, 804.02, 1504.06

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Leveugle 10470519 - (D) GRIMES 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Sheridan Ross PC RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Morris 11022133 - (D) KUMAR 103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC LEROUX, ETIENNE PIERRE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2657 Ex Parte Bennett et al 11030919 - (D) HOFF 103 Ian M. Bennett LERNER, MARTIN

2686 Ex Parte Theuss 11956971 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 Dicke, Billig & Czaja, PLLC BLOUIN, MARK S

2695 Ex Parte Lee et al 10645868 - (D) WARD 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Searls et al 11588682 - (D) FRAHM 112(2)/102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. DINH, TUAN T

2885 Ex Parte Yoo et al 11600059 - (D) DIXON 102/103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP NEGRON, ISMAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Lifson et al 10732134 - (D) DILLON 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. JIANG, CHEN WEN

3769 Ex Parte Van Hal et al 12089198 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LIPITZ, JEFFREY BRIAN

basell

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Gately et al 10/267,565 WALSH 112(1)/103(a) Leon R.Yankwich,Esq. YANKWICH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER KIM, YUNSOO

1657 Ex Parte Ueda et al 11/315,161 WALSH 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER GITOMER, RALPH J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Hladik et al 11/062,482 MILLS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER EGWIM, KELECHI CHIDI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Green et al 11/114,453 WALSH 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H

Cf. In re Basell Poliolefine Italia S.P.A., 547 F.3d 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the disclosure of a copending application may be used to learn the meaning of claims and to interpret the coverage of a claim).

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Muraoka et al 10/454,629 GREEN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

1616 Ex Parte Cornes et al 10/560,097 ADAMS 103(a) SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION , INC. EXAMINER RICHTER, JOHANN R

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Ming et al 11/133,007 PAK 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1764 Ex Parte Arioglu et al 11/199,142 KIMLIN 103(a) IP Authority, LLC Ramraj Soundararajan EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRI V

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Vu 11/047,264 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) JENKINS, WILSON, TAYLOR & HUNT, P. A. EXAMINER DECKER, CASSANDRA L

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Sowden et al 10/388,757 DILLON 103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER PERVAN, MICHAEL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Datta et al 11/028,378 KRIVAK 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER REAMES, MATTHEW L

2895 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11/438,657 HAHN 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER RICHARDS, N DREW

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Chandrashekhar et al 10/155,768 FISCHETTI 101/103(a) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER BAIRD, EDWARD J

basell, berg, eli lilly, graves, LeGrice, sasse, amgen2

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/08/2011 1623 Ex Parte Damien et al 10/920,297 FREDMAN 112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WHITE, EVERETT NMN

“In determining double patenting, a one-way test is normally applied, in which "the examiner asks whether the application claims are obvious over the patent claims."” In re Basell Poliolefine Italia S.P.A., 547 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The two-way test “is a narrow exception to the general rule of the one-way test.” Berg, 140 F.3d at 1432. “The two-way test is only appropriate in the unusual circumstance where, inter alia, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") is "solely responsible for the delay in causing the second-filed application to issue prior to the first."” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 n. 7 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437).

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . .804, 2144.08, 2165, 2165.01

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/08/2011 2444 Ex Parte Obradovich et al 09/910,510 NAPPI 103(a) CHRISTIE PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/12/2011 1627 Ex Parte Perc et al 10/531,540 FREDMAN 103(a) Cozen O''Connor EXAMINER JEAN-LOUIS, SAMIRA JM

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/08/2011 1724 Ex Parte Mole 10/471,304 NAGUMO 103(a) HONEYWELL/HUSCH EXAMINER OLSEN, KAJ K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/08/2011 2491 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 10/160,984 BAUMEISTER 112(2)/102(e) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/11/2011 2826 Ex Parte Stephenson et al 10/120,814 ROBERTSON 102(e) Michael G. Fletcher Fletcher, Yoder & Van Someren EXAMINER WILLIAMS, ALEXANDER O

A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention “such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.” See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962)).

Further, the Federal Circuit has instructed:

In patent prosecution the examiner is entitled to reject application claims as anticipated by a prior art patent without conducting an inquiry into whether or not that patent is enabled or whether or not it is the claimed material (as opposed to the unclaimed disclosures) in that patent that are at issue. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681, 207 USPQ 107, 111 (C.C.P.A.1980) (“[W]hen the PTO cited a disclosure which expressly anticipated the present invention . . . the burden was shifted to the applicant. He had to rebut the presumption of the operability of [the prior art patent] by a preponderance of the evidence.”). The applicant, however, can then overcome that rejection by proving that the relevant disclosures of the prior art patent are not enabled. Id.

Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (footnotes omitted).

LeGrice, In re, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2121.03

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

DISMISSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/12/2011 1642 Ex Parte BERNDORFF et al 12/211,198 JORDAN abandoned MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER AEDER, SEAN E

07/12/2011 1643 Ex Parte Zhao et al 10/335,056 JORDAN RCE MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE

07/12/2011 1643 Ex Parte ZHAO et al 12/422,863 JORDAN RCE MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE