hubbell2, kaplan, berg

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte Lee et al 11086022 - (D) KENNEDY 103 HONEYWELL/FAEGRE BERMAN, JASON

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Borenstein 12428649 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC SIDDIQI, MOHAMMAD A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Perez-Lopez et al 12522284 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY PRONE, JASON D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Conlon 12338318 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 double patenting Basch & Nickerson LLP YANG, ANDREW GUS

We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that two-way obviousness is applicable to the record before us. As stated in the MPEP:

Similarly, even if the application under examination is the earlier-filed application, only a one-way determination of distinctness is needed to support a double patenting rejection in the absence of a finding: (A) that "the PTO is solely responsible for any delays" in prosecution of the earlier-filed application (In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140, 1150, 106 USPQ2d 1032, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2013); and (B) that the applicant could not have filed the conflicting claims in a single (i.e., the earlier-filed) application (In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In Kaplan, a generic invention (use of solvents) was invented by Kaplan, and a species thereof (i.e., use of a specific combination of solvents) was invented by Kaplan and Walker. Multiple applications were necessary to claim both the broad and narrow inventions because at the time the applications were filed, 35 U.S.C. 116 did not expressly authorize filing a patent application in the name of joint inventors who did not make a contribution to the invention defined in each claim in the patent.). Compare In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998), wherein the genus and species claims could have been filed in the same application.
MPEP §804(11 )(8)(1 )(b ).

The above cited cases make it clear the two-way test is a "narrow exception to general rule of the one-way test" (Berg, 140 F.3d at 1432) and the two-way test does not apply where PTO was not "solely responsible for the delay in causing [a] second-filed application to issue prior to the first" (Hubbell, 709 F.3d at 1149).

Berg, In re, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 804

Kaplan, In re, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 804

2695 Ex Parte Yilmaz 12605779 - (D) DIXON 103 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. KIYABU, KARIN A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Wolf et al 12499417 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2126 Ex Parte Wesson et al 13059093 - (D) CUTITTA 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - Otis Elevator SIVANESAN, SIVALINGAM

2199 Ex Parte Aarni et al 12468792 - (D) HOWARD 103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation HEBERT, THEODORE E

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Kreig et al 12572667 - (D) HUME 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM POUGHKEEPSIE NANO, SARGON N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Cunningham et al 12714086 - (D) CAPP 112(2)/102/103 Covidien LP VAHDAT, KHADIJEH A

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

boesch, sebek, eli lilly, berg

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte Palle et al 11555951 - (D) ADAMS 103 DR. REDDY''S LABORATORIES, INC. COUGHLIN, MATTHEW P

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Zanzig et al 11820684 - (D) KRATZ 103 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

In this regard, while it is generally a matter of obviousness for the skilled artisan to determine the optimum value within a disclosed range, In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980), it may not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum value that is significantly outside the range taught by the prior art. See In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907 (CCPA 1972).

Boesch, In re, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . 716.02(b), 2144.05

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Lau et al 11172226 - (D) COURTENAY 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN DUDEK JR, EDWARD J

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Vanttinen et al 09864017 - (D) DIXON 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC TRUONG, THANHNGA B

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Nall et al 11323637 - (D) ZECHER 103 FAY SHARPE LLP/GE LIGHTING SOLUTIONS, LLC SAWHNEY, HARGOBIND S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte van Zuilekom 11336513 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione/Ann Arbor Parsley, David

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Zhou et al 10346697 - (D) McCOLLUM 102/103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC Flick, Jason

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Du et al 11850243 - (D) REIMERS 102/103 102 SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS HUTCHINS, CATHLEEN R

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Carty et al 11775002 - (D) GRIMES 103/obviousness-type double patenting Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner KASSA, TIGABU

1633 Ex Parte Dzau et al 10850994 - (D) ADAMS obviousness-type double patenting J. MICHAEL SCHIFF Marvich, Maria

See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 969 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“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.'”) (quoting In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998), emphasis added by the Eli Lilly court).

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

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Tompkins et al 11726561 - (D) OBERMANN 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY HUG, JOHN ERIC

1785 Ex Parte Lu 12168920 - (D) GAUDETTE 112(2)/102 LEONG C. LEI RUTHKOSKY, MARK

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Levine 10041081 - (D) WEINBERG 112(1)/112(2)/103 Perman & Green, LLP PAULA, CESAR B

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Mackenzie et al 11559977 - (D) KRIVAK 103 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC SWARTHOUT, BRENT

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Mongeon et al 10663570 - (D) GREEN 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. D ABREU, MICHAEL JOSEPH

braat, berg

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Guo 12/101,444 GREEN 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER RAO, SAVITHA M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Jennrich et al 10/938,260 GARRIS 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER BRUNSMAN, DAVID M

1714 Ex Parte Claar et al 11/154,924 WARREN 103(a) PPG Industries, Inc. EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R

1776 Ex Parte McNeff et al 10/965,273 SMITH 103(a) PAULY, DEVRIES SMITH & DEFFNER, L.L.C. EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G

1781 Ex Parte Barry et al 11/263,060 SCHEINER 112(1)/103(a) CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP EXAMINER GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

1786 Ex Parte Balthes 11/303,256 COLAIANNI 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y

1789 Ex Parte Bengtsson-Riveros et al 10/468,645 COLAIANNI 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Heiman et al 09/823,079 CHEN 103(a) SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. EXAMINER LEROUX, ETIENNE PIERRE

2175 Ex Parte Bhogal et al 11/189,889 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. EXAMINER TANK, ANDREW L

2185 Ex Parte Roberson et al 10/969,648 HOMERE 103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, P.C. EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Ackley et al 10/859,732 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) DISNEY ENTERPRISES C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A

2462 Ex Parte Krishnamurthi et al 10/454,685 NAPPI 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER WU, JIANYE

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Chatenever et al 10/034,273 HOFF 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER HENN, TIMOTHY J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Speiser et al 11/405,209 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) YAHOO! INC. C/O Ostrow Kaufman LLP EXAMINER DAGNEW, SABA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Penzias 11/286,702 ASTORINO 103(a) POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K

3761 Ex Parte Butsch et al 11/059,977 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3761 Ex Parte Leinsing 11/061,290 SCHAFER 102(b)/103(a) McDermott Will & Emery LLP EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

3762 Ex Parte Bradley et al 11/096,662 ASTORINO 103(a) Vista IP Law Group LLP EXAMINER GETZOW, SCOTT M

3767 Ex Parte Mogensen et al 10/813,214 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Heidi A. Dare BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M

3767 Ex Parte Mogensen et al 10/687,568 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M

3767 Ex Parte Woo 10/685,809 CLARKE 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER ANDERSON, MICHAEL J

3781 Ex Parte Schlatter 10/623,588 BAHR 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER SMALLEY, JAMES N
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Michael 11/436,718 LEBOVITZ 102(B)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP EXAMINER FORMAN, BETTY J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Murphy et al 11/088,583 KRIVAK 103(a) 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER LE, HUNG D

2171 Ex Parte Erman 11/174,114 KRIVAK 103(a) 103(a) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER ALVESTEFFER, STEPHEN D

2175 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/850,399 POTHIER 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER PHANTANA ANGKOOL, DAVID

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Hjartarson et al 09/810,938 DANG 102(e)/103(a) Clements Bernard PLLC EXAMINER LEE, ANDREW CHUNG CHEUNG

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Mueller 11/085,859 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) 103(a) Coherent, Inc. c/o Morrison & Foerster LLP EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Kramer et al 10/219,941 KIM 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER NORMAN, SAMICA L

3693 Ex Parte Kramer et al 10/219,453 KIM 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER NORMAN, SAMICA L
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1742 Ex Parte 6074454 et al Ex parte STEVEN E. ROBBINS 90/010,402 08/678,776 GUEST 103(a) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: GENE S. WINTER ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS LLC original EXAMINER JENKINS, DANIEL J
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Ronchi et al 10/971,231 ADAMS 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER HOLT, ANDRIAE M

1624 Ex Parte Brown et al 11/243,623 MILLS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting ASTRA ZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP EXAMINER BALASUBRAMANIAN, VENKATARAMAN

1628 Ex Parte Aylor et al 11/526,410 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) ROBERT B. AYLOR EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

1632 Ex Parte Bevis et al 10/844,064 SCHEINER obviousness-type double patenting ANDRUS, SCEALES, STARKE & SAWALL, LLP EXAMINER FALK, ANNE MARIE

Generally, a “one-way” test has been applied to determine obviousness-type double patenting. Under that test, the examiner asks whether the application claims are obvious over the patent claims. In a recent case, with unusual circumstances, however, this court instead applied a “two-way” test. See Braat, [937 F.2d 589, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1991)]. Under the two-way test, the examiner also asks whether the patent claims are obvious over the application claims. If not, the application claims later may be allowed. Thus, when the two-way test applies, some claims may be allowed that would have been rejected under the one-way test . . . The essential concern was to prevent rejections for obviousness-type double patenting when the applicants filed first for a basic invention and later for an improvement, but, through no fault of the applicants, the PTO decided the applications in reverse order of filing, rejecting the basic application although it would have been allowed if the applications had been decided in the order of their filing.

* * *
. . . Since Braat, many patent applicants facing an obviousnesstype double patenting rejection under the one-way test have argued that they actually are entitled to the two-way test. The two-way test, however, is a narrow exception to the general rule of the one-way test. . . . Nevertheless, the notion survives that in certain unusual circumstances, the applicant should receive the benefit of the two-way test. The question then is: when? In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

The two-way exception can only apply when the applicant could not avoid separate filings, and even then, only if the PTO controlled the rates of prosecution to cause the later filed species claims to issue before the claims for a genus in an earlier application. Id. at 1435.

Berg, In re, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Kamoto 11/484,732 KIMLIN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER RODEE, CHRISTOPHER D

1724 Ex Parte Li et al 09/971,284 COLAIANNI 103(a) SAILE ACKERMAN LLC EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1725 Ex Parte Gaudiana et al 11/451,873 SMITH 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER TRINH, THANH TRUC

1798 Ex Parte FitzPatrick 10/612,196 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Land 10/702,257 DANG 102(e)/103(a) Chen Yoshimura LLP EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY

2172 Ex Parte Kahan et al 09/832,828 DANG 103(a) SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS, PLLC EXAMINER ENGLAND, SARA M

2172 Ex Parte Uthe et al 10/811,541 KOHUT 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/IBM EXAMINER WONG, WILLIAM

2182 Ex Parte DeGroot 10/496,506 CHANG 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER SORRELL, ERON J

2188 Ex Parte McGlew et al 11/044,260 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KIM, HONG CHONG

2197 Ex Parte Chase et al 10/426,231 WINSOR 101/102(e) Greg Goshorn, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, RONGFA PHILIP

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2483 Ex Parte Carlbom et al 10/403,443 GONSALVES 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER CZEKAJ, DAVID J

2492 Ex Parte Zacharla et al 11/501,389 JEFFERY 101/102(e)/103(a) ROBERT M. MCDERMOTT, ESQ. EXAMINER KIM, TAE K

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Palin et al 10/773,287 ZECHER 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU

2627 Ex Parte Hoelsaeter 10/976,968 SMITH 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN LLP EXAMINER WATKO, JULIE ANNE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Glazer et al 11/064,718 ASTORINO 112(2)/103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Perez-Cruet 11/500,542 LEBOVITZ 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC MI4 SPINE, LLC EXAMINER PATEL, TARLA R
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Leaman 11/162,320 SMITH 103(a) Zeman-Mullen & Ford, LLP EXAMINER WALLENHORST, MAUREEN

GRANTED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,056 HAHN 103(a) 103(a) SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 7000325 et al 95/001,130 Bunzl Processor Distribution LLC, Requester and Appellant, v. Patent of Bettcher Industries, Inc., Patent Owner and Respondent ROBERTSON 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN

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