bell atlantic

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Fredrickson et al 11322951 - (D) GRIMES 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N

2168 Ex Parte Letkeman 11213148 - (D) GRIMES 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EHICHIOYA, IRETE FRED

2197 Ex Parte Belisario et al 11284172 - (D) HOMERE 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy PAN, HANG

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Bevan 11482481 - (D) HILL 103 CENTRAL COAST PATENT AGENCY, INC TRAN, NAM T

2453 Ex Parte Norden et al 11316150 - (D) BROWNE 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Steinmetz 11350014 - (D) SCHEINER 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP ZENATI, AMAL S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Heinz 11736028 - (D) BUI 102/103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C ZECHER, CORDELIA P K

2434 Ex Parte He et al 10525138 - (D) MORGAN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SANDERS, STEPHEN

2451 Ex Parte Aydar et al 11314167 - (D) CALVE 101/102/103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Specific Media/Myspace TIV, BACKHEAN

2462 Ex Parte Wang et al 10612401 - (D) FISHMAN 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP DUONG, CHRISTINE T

2493 Ex Parte Gearhart et al 11626513 - (D) HUME 101/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC SIMITOSKI, MICHAEL J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Mun 10639288 - (D) FISHMAN 103 LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Epting et al 11531189 - (D) MOHANTY 112(2)/101/103 PHILIP H. BURRUS, IV PUTTAIAH, ASHA

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART AND REMANDED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 TEMPO LIGHTING, INC., Appellant, v. TIVOLI, LLC, Appellee. 2013-1140 95/000,067 6,554,446 09/476,951 RADER claim construction/112 waiver/judicial estoppel/102 Lapple IP Law, P.C.; GRAY LAW FIRM DELGIZZI, RONALD ERNEST

In sum, the examiner erred by resorting to extrinsic evidence that was inconsistent with the more reliable intrinsic evidence. Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[E]xtrinsic evidence may be used only to assist in the proper understanding of the disputed limitation; it may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file history.”).

DONNER 3: 471
HARMON 6: 26, 34, 153; 8: 58; 19: 450

exxon research, CLS, bell atlantic, jones2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1623 Ex Parte Edelman et al 11440529 - (D) GRIMES 103 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP BLAND, LAYLA D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Kashyap 11404640 - (D) BENOIT 103 LAW OFFICES (San Jose) YU, XIANG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Rathonyi et al 11675881 - (D) BENOIT 102 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC HTUN, SAN A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Rouen 10711820 - (D) RICE 103 SCHLUMBERGER ROSHARON CAMPUS ANDREWS, DAVID L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Chuter 11825473 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK SHIPMON, TIFFANY P

3748 Ex Parte Handler et al 11517865 - (D) DANIELS 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Grilliot et al 11247061 - (D) CURCURI 103 103 HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS EASON, MATTHEW A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Agostinelli 10476139 - (D) BOUCHER 103 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB CAVALLARI, DANIEL J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Stones et al 10889764 - (D) SCANLON 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 112(1) Black & Decker Corporation DEXTER,CLARK F

See Exxon Rsrch and Eng’g Co. v. U.S., 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds.”).
HARMON 1: 211, 238; 5: 230, 241, 247
DONNER 10: 23, 24, 26

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Lesschaeve et al 12278179 - (D) KATZ 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. KENNEDY, TIMOTHY J

1773 Ex Parte Williamson et al 11618987 - (D) HASTINGS 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP LEVKOVICH, NATALIA A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Kim 11935029 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Stanzione & Kim, LLP YANCHUS III, PAULB

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Vosseler 10318210 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DAFTUAR, SAKET K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Negro et al 11113542 - (D) POTHIER 103 Gesmer Updegrove LLP HAGAN, SEAN P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Helmersson et al 10586032 - (D) SAINDON 103 MICHAUD-Kinney Group LLP O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P

3661 Ex Parte Duddles et al 11348713 - (D) BUNTING 103 Reising, Ethington, Barnes, Kisselle, P.C. NOLAN, PETER D  

REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Andritz INC. Appellant 90010403 5753075 08/738,239 LEBOVITZ 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC Third Party Requester: FASTH LAW OFFICES (ROLF FASTH) JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE original LEAVITT, STEVEN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., AND ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HULU, LLC, Defendant, AND WILDTANGENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2010-1544 7,346,545 09/867,181 RADER Concurring LOURIE 101 Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman LLP; Latham & Watkins, LLP original MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP POND, ROBERT M

First, it will be rare that a patent infringement suit can be dismissed at the pleading stage for lack of patentable subject matter. This is so because every issued patent is presumed to have been issued properly, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See, e.g., CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 1920941, *33 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2013) (Chief Judge Rader, and Judges Linn, Moore, and O’Malley, concluding that “any attack on an issued patent based on a challenge to the eligibility of the subject matter must be proven by clear and convincing evidence,” and Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, and Wallach, concluding that a statutory presumption of validity applies when § 101 is raised as a basis for invalidity in district court proceedings.). Further, if Rule 12(b)(6) is used to assert an affirmative defense, dismissal is appropriate only if the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, suffice to establish the defense. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007). Thus, the only plausible reading of the patent must be that there is clear and convincing evidence of ineligibility. For those reasons, Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for lack of eligible subject matter will be the exception, not the rule.

meitzner, pearson, omega, raytek, CCS, bell atlantic

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Zhong et al 10/811,277 HANLON 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Windl 11/136,629 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER WIENER, ERIC A

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requestor, Respondent v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,003 6,397,136 MEDLEY 112(2)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Brian Roffe, Esq. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Rickard K. DeMille BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE, GERTRUDE

Argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).

EXAMINER REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 RAYSPAN CORPORATION and Netgear, Inc., Appellant-Reexamination Requester, v. Patent 7,193,562 of RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., Owner 95/001,078 7,193,562 TORCZON 102/103(a) For the requester: Thomas C. Reynolds, SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER For the owner: Steve Bachmann, CARR & FERRELL LLP For the Commissioner of Patents: Deandra M. Hughes, with Albert J. Gagliardi and Eric S. Keasel, ART UNIT 3992 EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER CHEN, SHIH CHAO

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte English et al 11/818,103 PRATS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

1782 Ex Parte Elder et al 11/344,992 LANE 112(1)/103(a) CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte St. Pierre et al 10/206,932 COURTENAY 103(a) MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that an express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation. Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted):

Beyond the words of the claim, neither the district court nor Raytek has identified any express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation. See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Our independent review of the patent document, see Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2001), reveals no express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by this negative limitation. Accordingly, we must conclude that there is no basis in the patent specification for adding the negative limitation.

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Wong et al 10/519,278 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. EXAMINER MILLER, BRANDON J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/870,375 KIM 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER JOSEPH, TONYA S
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Baeremaecker et al 10/968,130 WALSH 103(a) SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY LLP EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H

NEW

REVERSED

3761 Ex Parte Erspamer et al 10/135,936 McCARTHY 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3774 Ex Parte Lane et al 11/069,457 McCARTHY 103(a) Medtronic CardioVascular EXAMINER GANESAN, SUBA

1726 Ex Parte Ujiie et al 10/399,343 KRATZ 103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER DOVE, TRACY MAE

AFFIRMED

1781 Ex Parte Lundberg et al 11/484,263 OWENS 103(a) Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. EXAMINER CHAWLA, JYOTI

3686 Ex Parte Schoenberg 10/315,514 MOHANTY 103(a) King & Spalding LLP (Trizetto Customer Number) EXAMINER RANGREJ, SHEETAL