bicon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Castro et al 14493594 - (D) FREDMAN 103 THE ESTEE LAUDER COS, INC CHICKOS, SARAH J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte CUI et al 14284461 - (D) CASHION 103 Morris & Kamlay LLP / UDC LE, DUNG ANH

2844 Ex Parte Dixon 14102037 - (D) INGLESE 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC ALAEDDINI, BORNA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte ROMMEL 14300443 - (D) WIEDER 103 Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC LOBO, IAN J

3685 Ex Parte Williams 15346661 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 112(1)/112(2)/101/103 PERKINS COIE LLP - PAO General HALE, TIM B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Williams 14056301 - (D) HOELTER 103 Covidien LP WITTENSCHLAEGER, THOMAS M

"[C]laims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim." Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d. 945, 950 (Fed. Circ. 2006). 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Niedzwiecki et al 13653768 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 103 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP OHARA, BRIAN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Decarreau et al 14220491 - (D) AMUNDSON 112(4)/103 103 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC ORANGE, DAVID BENJAMIN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte BENSLEY et al 14386411 - (D) BAYAT 101/103 102 Harness Dickey (Troy) YIP, JACK

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Bergmann et al 12921885 - (D) CHANG 103 101 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. MOSS, NATALIE M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Dave et al 11512453 - (D) CASHION 103 MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP STAMFORD PENNY, TABATHAL

1721 Ex Parte Edwards 13798544 - (D) McGEE 102/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED DAM, DUSTIN Q

1732 Ex Parte Kretzschmar et al 13642695 - (D) HASTINGS 103 GRACE GMBH FORREST, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte DONG et al 14104822 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd (for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd) BURKE, JEFF A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Field et al 13448871 - (D) CUTITTA 103 Comcast c/o Ballard Spahr LLP MOORAD, IMRAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Krahnstoever et al 13221896 - (D) STRAUSS 103 101/103 GE GLOBAL PATENT OPERATION SYROWIK, MATHEW RICHARD

3623 Ex Parte Keyser et al 14037350 - (D) HOWARD 101 41.50 101 LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR) JEANTY, ROMAIN

3624 Ex Parte Galloway et al 13835889 - (D) POTHIER 112(1)/101/103 Clements Bernard Walker PLLC SADANANDA, ABHIJIT B

3664 Ex Parte Massarik 14849214 - (D) BAYAT 103 101 ST. ONGE STEW ARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI

3682 Ex Parte LI et al 14146637 - (D) STRAUSS 101/103 EGL/Excalibur ANDREI, RADU

3683 Ex Parte Civil et al 13409920 - (D) FINAMORE 112(1)/103 101 IBM Corp. - Fishkill Drafting Center YOUNG, ASHLEY YA-SHEH

3683 Ex Parte REDDINGTON et al 14047856 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 101 IBM (END-KLS) c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP ULLAH, ARIF

3685 Ex Parte Morinville 12014887 - (D) BAYAT 101/102 Loveless Law Group, PLLC WINTER, JOHN M

3693 Ex Parte Browne et al 13846702 - (D) FISCHETTI 112(2)/103 112(2)/101 Stephen M. De Klerk MatterLight IP ALLADIN, AMBREEN A

3693 Ex Parte Simmons et al 14148148 - (D) BISK 101 Cesari & Reed, L.L.P. BARTLEY, KENNETH

3694 Ex Parte Tsai et al 13995573 - (D) FRAHM 101/103 Jordan IP Law, LLC ANDERSON, SCOTT C

bicon, cat tech, king

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Lloyd et al 11300264 - (D) HOSKINS 103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD BRUTUS, JOEL F

"[C]laims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim." Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 885 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (refusing to adopt a claim construction which would render a claim limitation meaningless).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Poulleau 11659123 - (D) GARRIS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC WOODARD, JOYE L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Biehler et al 12632196 - (D) MCMILLIN 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION DANG, KHANH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Ali et al 13352985 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Fish & Richardson P.C. (Blackberry) WILLIAMS, JENEE LAUREN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte SONG et al 12537013 - (D) CHEN 103 Artegis Law Group, LLP MISHLER, ROBIN J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2862 Ex Parte Olmino 12437578 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP ANDERSON, LYNNE D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Furlong et al 10769117 - (D) FETTING 103 CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP WU, RUTAO

The particular labels attached to the codes that are associated are discernable only in the mind of the beholder, and such labels are afforded no patentable weight. King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010). (“If we were to adopt Ngai’s position, anyone could continue patenting a product indefinitely provided that they add a new instruction sheet to the product.”).

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05 , 2112.01

3623 Ex Parte Markowitz et al 11752692 - (D) FETTING 103 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP SWARTZ, STEPHEN S

3625 Ex Parte Oiwa 14115488 - (D) FETTING 101 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC GARG, YOGESH C

3683 Ex Parte COOK et al 12917119 - (D) MURPHY 103 Target Brands Inc. GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE

3696 Ex Parte Blythe 11965946 - (D) FETTING 112(1)/112(2) 103 HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Baumann et al 11096369 - (D) BROWNE 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON ROST, ANDREW J

3768 Ex Parte Hall et al 12741831 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BOR, HELENE CATHERINE

3788 Ex Parte Latvala 12514190 - (D) LANEY 103 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP DESAI, KAUSHIKKUMAR A

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Stansell et al 12234850 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 103 CRGO LAW GOSSAGE, GLENN

bicon, danly, stumbo

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Meyer 10845471 - (D) SMITH Concurring MORGAN 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (EP ORIGINATING) PATEL, DHAVAL V

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Joshi et al 11839826 - (D) GAUDETTE 102(b)/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED CHARIOUI, MOHAMED

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Barnett et al 09879825 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) DURAN, ARTHUR D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Scirica 11520343 - (D) GROSSMAN 102(b)/103 Covidien LP WEEKS, GLORIA R

3725 Ex Parte Kaufman 12137682 - (D) BROWNE 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Southeast IP Group, LLC BATTULA, PRADEEP CHOUDARY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Chun et al 11139591 - (D) STRAUSS 103 103 NSIP LAW CHBOUKI, TAREK

2165 Ex Parte Chun et al 11832982 - (D) STRAUSS 103 103 NSIP LAW CHBOUKI, TAREK

2171 Ex Parte Muir 11831660 - (D) JENKS 103 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP LEGGETT, ANDREA C.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Ford 12381451 - (D) PLENZLER 102(b)/103 102(b) Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. SWINEHART, EDWIN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Hester et al 11425139 - (D) KERINS 103 103 TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC LEWIS, JUSTIN V

Interpreting the claim term “removably” to mean merely being capable of being removed so as to encompass dissolution of the adhesive or disruption of other conventional and generally permanent attachment methods identified in Lee does not give appropriate weight to the meaning of that term and is not consistent with the nature of the attachment method disclosed by Appellants. See Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) and In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847 (CCPA 1959) (appellant has used such phrases as “for holding” and “for insulating” throughout the appealed claims with the obvious intention of limiting them to actual performance of the stated functions, as distinguished from mere possibility of such performance). The Examiner’s interpretation essentially renders the terms in the claims superfluous as most attachment methods are capable of being removed if exposed to some outside destructive force. Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad as it effectively would expunge the term “removably” from the claim language. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions that render phrases in claims superfluous).

Danly, In re, 263 F.2d 844, 120 USPQ 528 (CCPA 1959) 2114

DONNER 8: 1554

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Cummings et al 12124725 - (D) PAK 103 ECOLAB USA INC. CARRILLO, BIBI SHARIDAN

1732 Ex Parte Palla et al 12475102 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 HONEYWELL/UOP NGUYEN, COLETTE B

1792 Ex Parte Bekele 12152615 - (D) MURPHY 103 Sealed Air Corporation THAKUR, VIREN A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Mourra 10906592 - (D) SMITH 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Oketani et al 12274599 - (D) SMITH 112(2)/103 KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP LEE, JONG SUK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Wilcoxen et al 10970037 - (D) OSINSKI 103 The Law Office of Steven G. Roeder VERAA, CHRISTOPHER

3677 Ex Parte Swerdlick 12080226 - (D) DANIELS 112(2)/102(b)/103 Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. MILLER, WILLIAM L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Brown 11614302 - (D) CAPP 103 Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. FRISBY, KESHA

3778 Ex Parte Davidowski et al 11300052 - (D) SNEDDEN 102(e)/103 37 C.F.R § 41.50(b) 102(e) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Richards 12069674 - (R) CALVE Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 CONJUCHEM, LLC Requester and Cross-Appellant v. AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000276 6924264 09/561,226 LEBOVITZ 103 103 CONJUCHEM BIOTECHNOLOGIES INC. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JONES DAY TURNER, SHARON L original LIU, SAMUEL W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2151 APPLE INC. Requester and Respondent v. ZAPMEDIA SERVICES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001143 7343414 11/162,716 HOFF 102(b)/102(e)/103 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. Third Party Requester NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP FERRIS III, FRED O original MAUNG, ZARNI

bicon, zumbiel, cortright, case, eaton, richdel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Braun et al 11721077 - (D) KRATZ 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. SAHA, BIJAY S

1745 Ex Parte Schonbeck 11152425 - (D) DELMENDO 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2699 Ex Parte Branton et al 11192619 - (D) KRIVAK 103 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP SHAPIRO, LEONID

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte CELESTINI 11463918 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Lutz 11354781 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Cozen O'Connor TAOUSAKIS, ALEXANDER P

Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Prior art references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means ... [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’ ... Accordingly, the PTO’s interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous art.

Id. (internal citations omitted).

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111, 2164.04

As the Appellant chose to use both the preamble and the body of the claim to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the preamble is limiting. See e.g., C.W. Zumbiel Co., Inc. v. Kappos 702 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952-53 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“when the limitations in the body of the claim ‘rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention’” (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Sonderkaer 10513672 - (D) SAINDON 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC CHAPMAN, JEANETTE E

3634 Ex Parte Ashmus 11207409 - (D) OSINSKI 112(2) 103 JANSSON SHUPE & MUNGER LTD. CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3689 Ex Parte Harris 10531246 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(1)/112(2)/101/103 112(2)/101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Nederegger et al 11605228 - (D) KILE 103 102/103 Manelli Selter PLLC TIETJEN, MARINA ANNETTE

3769 Ex Parte Rogers 11448296 - (D) PRATS 103 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP SHAY, DAVID M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Feng et al 12187049 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Hartman Global IP Law TAKEUCHI, YOSHITOSHI

1756 Ex Parte Clipstone et al 11375693 - (D) BEST 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1791 Ex Parte Mayville et al 11106082 - (D) NAGUMO 103/obviousness-type double patenting BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DICUS, TAMRA

As our reviewing court has explained, “[p]recedent cannot establish facts.” Case v. CPC Int’l, Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Case v. CPC Int’l Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 221 USPQ 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2301.03

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Videtich 10135300 - (D) DIXON 112(2)/102 General Motors Corporation ANTHONY LUKE SIMON NGUYEN, THUONG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Dick 11619642 - (D) TARTAL 103 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP BOEHLER, ANNE MARIE M

Moreover, asserting that what makes an invention commercially successful is a claimed feature that is well known in the art fails to establish a nexus because “the asserted commercial success of the product must be due to the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.” J.T. Eaton & Co., Inc. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) citing to Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 714 F.2d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (claims held obvious despite purported showing of commercial success when patentee failed to show that “such commercial success as its marketed system enjoyed was due to anything disclosed in the patent in suit which was not readily available in the prior art.”)

3611 Ex Parte Parenti et al 12015337 - (D) CAPP 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C KIM, SHIN H

3626 Ex Parte Graves et al 10813230 - (D) KIM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 DOWELL & DOWELL P.C. COUPE, ANITA YVONNE

3689 Ex Parte Cole et al 10408175 - (D) FETTING 102/103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Porter et al 11031421 - (D) DANIELS 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP MANAHAN, TODD E

bicon, miller3, vogel, innova

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Eghtesady 11429395 - (D) GREEN 103 TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP GRAY, PHILLIP A

Claim language, however, “should not [be] treated as meaningless.” Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Marek 10957534 - (D) PARVIS 102/103 ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC. GOODARZI, NASSER MOAZZAMI

A claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim language itself. See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys. Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 72 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2173.05(g)

2446 Ex Parte Sitaraman et al 11693924 - (D) SIU 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. NGUYEN, DUSTIN

2454 Ex Parte Cope 12035584 - (D) COURTENAY statutory double patenting 101 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP AVELLINO, JOSEPH E

In a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the issue is whether the same invention is being claimed twice. The “same invention” means identical subject matter. Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186, 197 (1894). As expressed by the court in In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970), “[a] good test, and probably the only objective test, for ‘same invention,’ is whether one of the claims could be literally infringed without literally infringing the other. If it could be, the claims do not define identically the same invention.”

Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894) 804

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

2456 Ex Parte Terrill et al 11237584 - (D) GONSALVES 103 Patent Capital Group FAN, HUA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Yuuki 11174741 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

2658 Ex Parte Sailer 11870505 - (D) McKONE 103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE BORSETTI, GREG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Ford et al 10064962 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Smith et al 10643527 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

american academy, bicon, phillips

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Sonnenrein et al 10517740 - (D) DILLON 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Jiang 11033434 - (D) CALVE 112(2) Westinghouse Electric Company LLC MONDT, JOHANNES P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Massicotte et al 11503617 - (D) GRIMES 102 Gauthier & Connors LLP MILES, JONATHAN WADE

3737 Ex Parte Deckman et al 11775452 - (D) GREEN 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI CWERN, JONATHAN

We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.

We recognize that during prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re American Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim language, however, “should not [be] treated as meaningless.” Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

American Academy of Science Tech. Center, In re, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . 2111, 2111.01

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Runov et al 10985630 - (D) GONSALVES 102 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/APPLE SONG, DAEHO D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Diederichs et al 11326903 - (D) WEINBERG 112(2)/102/103 112(2)/102/103 THE MAXHAM FIRM MUSLEH, MOHAMAD A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Swedek et al 10444921 - (D) OSINSKI 112(1)/103 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. SHAKERI, HADI

3742 Ex Parte Leisner et al 11742357 - (D) FITZPATRICK 102/103 102/103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) MAYE, AYUB A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 ZUMBOX, INC. Requester and Appellant  v. PITNEY BOWES, INC. Patent  Owner and  Respondent  95001301 7,058,586 09/741,238 COCKS 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. CRAVER, CHARLES R original WILDER, CYNTHIA B

1647 Ex Parte HUNT 12498293 - (D) GRIMES 103 ALLERGAN, INC. SHUKLA, RAM R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Arora 09908039 - (D) DANG 103 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP SHEPARD, JUSTIN E

2466 Ex Parte Kliger et al 09943424 - (D) DIXON 103 Weiss & Arons, LLP DECKER, CASSANDRA L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Wallace et al 11176598 - (D) BONILLA 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F

3746 Ex Parte Kabir et al 11333570 - (D) WOOD 112(2)/102/103 Chamberlain, Hrdicka, White, Williams & Aughtry, P.C. BERTHEAUD, PETER JOHN

american academy, stumbo, bicon

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Mikhail et al 11/196,632 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER YANCHUK, STEPHEN J

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Sturm 11/926,244 WINSOR 102(b) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER WANG, JACK K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Blette et al 10/939,540 SPAHN 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER POON, PETER M

See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.).

American Academy of Science Tech. Center, In re, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . 2111, 2111.01
See Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Claims are construed with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.).

See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render phrases in claims superfluous).

3644 Ex Parte Freidell 11/338,221 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER WILLIAMS, MONICA L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Cameron et al 10/517,906 GARRIS 103(a) 103(a) The BOC Group, Inc. EXAMINER YANG, JIE
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART & REVERSED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3749 Ex Parte 6886553 et al Ex parte HEATMAX, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,869 DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WILLIAM L. BROOKS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PRACTICE GROUPEXAMINER WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original EXAMINER YEUNG, JAMES C
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Pickering 11/445,360 HASTINGS 103(a) MDIP LLC EXAMINER VAJDA, PETER L

1747 Ex Parte Ueyoko et al 11/592,893 KATZ 103(a) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1778 Ex Parte Benevides et al 11/211,066 GARRIS 112(2)/103(a) Waters Technologies Corporation EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Egnor et al 11/024,967 SMITH 103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER HWA, SHYUE JIUNN

2179 Ex Parte Lee et al 10/743,476 ZECHER 102(b) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER LO, WEILUN

2186 Ex Parte Kuwata 11/372,198 DANG 103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER DUDEK JR, EDWARD J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Shih et al 10/703,762 RUGGIERO 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SMOOT, STEPHEN W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Gaetano 10/641,853 FISCHETTI 103(a) 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103(a) MITEL NETWORKS CORPORATION EXAMINER AGWUMEZIE, CHARLES C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Venturelli 10/538,913 GREEN 103(a) MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. EXAMINER MCEVOY, THOMAS M

3751 Ex Parte Aylward 11/421,624 BAHR 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER NIESZ, JASON KAROL
REHEARING

DENIED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Golden 11/095,355 HOELTER 102(b) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER MAI, HAO D

o'farrell, life techs, bicon, stumbo

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Wells et al 10/153,207 SPIEGEL 112(1)/102(e) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER SAOUD, CHRISTINE J 

Ex Parte Childress et al 11/144,464 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS INC. C/O DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP EXAMINER BALASUBRAMANIAN, VENKATARAMAN 

Ex Parte Kleinsek 11/711,921 SPIEGEL 102(b)/103(a) DON A. KLEINSEK, PH.D. EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J 

For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success." In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Expectation of success is assessed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made. Life Techs., Inc. v. Clontech Labs., Inc. , 224 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Berger et al 10/637,339 HUGHES 102(e) Yee & Associates, P.C. EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N 

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

Ex Parte Holmstrom et al 10/832,180 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) ADVANTEDGE LAW GROUP, LLC EXAMINER STRIMBU, GREGORY J 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Jankoski et al 10/364,705 SILVERBERG 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER MAI, TRI M 

Ex Parte Wasylucha 10/872,256 SILVERBERG 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE 

Claims are construed with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim. Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render phrases in claims superfluous). 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Warrell 10/738,867 GRIMES 103(a) DIEHL SERVILLA LLC EXAMINER GIBBS, TERRA C 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Mantle 10/523,857 SILVERBERG 103(a) SHAY GLENN LLP EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R