bilski

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Gartner 12241958 - (D) MacDONALD 102 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP Box AVAYA Inc. BOOKER, KELVIN

2175 Ex Parte Campbell et al 12504163 - (D) TOWNSEND 101/102 VERIZON HO, RUAY L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Dalsgaard 12225585 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 41.50 112(b) Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Nokia Technologies Oy ABELSON, RONALD B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte YAMASHIRO et al 12189319 - (D) ENGELS 103 Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP O'TOOLE, COLLEEN J

3685 Ex Parte Gouget et al 12597877 - (D) McSHANE 101/112(1)/112(2)/103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC KIM, STEVENS

At the time the Final Office Action was issued in this case, the applicable law stated "that the machine-or-transformation test is a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101. The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible 'process."' Bilski v. Kappas, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010).

Because the machine-or-transformation test was used as the sole test for deciding whether the invention is directed to patent-eligible subject matter and we find that there is reversible error in the Examiner's related findings, we reverse the rejection of claims 2-6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) 2103 , 2106

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Lopez Villanueva et al 13509951 - (D) SNAY 103 103 41.50 102 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP RIOJA, MELISSA A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Nuttal 12854329 - (D) SMEGAL 103 double patenting 41.50 112(2) BGL HONG, THOMAS J

3716 Ex Parte Aoki 12066237 - (D) KORNICZKY 103 102 NIXON PEABODY LLP SKAARUP, JASON M

3726 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11853924 - (D) GEIER 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY BRYANT, DAVID P

3746 Ex Parte Yoshida et al 11794303 - (D) HOSKINS 103 103 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC) 1 KRAMER, DEVON C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Yamka et al 12876451 - (D) GRIMES 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY SASAN, ARADHANA

1616 Ex Parte Agerup 11090141 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103/double patenting BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC FISHER, ABIGAIL L

1618 Ex Parte Jaffer 12249715 - (D) McCOLLUM 112(2) 103 QUARLES & BRADYLLP DONOHUE, SEAN R

1628 Ex Parte Friesen et al 12296148 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY THOMAS, TIMOTHY P

1644 Ex Parte Urbaniak et al 10563204 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1) double patenting LICATA & TYRRELL P.C. SZPERKA, MICHAEL EDWARD

1675 Ex Parte Tryggvason et al 13409594 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1) 41.50 112(1) FAY SHARPE LLP
HELLMAN, KRISTINA M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte Allen et al 12754473 - (D) BEST 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- - Applied Materials WANGA, TIMON

1779 Ex Parte Theron et al 12991802 - (D) SQUIRE 103 JAMES EARL LOWE, JR ANDERSON, DENISE R

1782 Ex Parte Nakajima et al 13579976 - (D) NAGUMO 103 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC) LAN, YAN

1787 Ex Parte Braun et al 12375875 - (D) DENNETT 103 Cozen O'Connor SHAH, SAMIR

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2139 Ex Parte Farhan et al 12543911 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP SADLER, NATHAN

2164 Ex Parte Stalenhoef et al 12606221 - (D) SHAW 103 Blank Rome LLP Apple MAHMOOD, REZWANUL

2168 Ex Parte Verosub 11621541 - (D) DEJMEK 103 Polsinelli PC Apple Inc. MACKES, KRIS E

2193 Ex Parte Archambault et al 12830553 - (D) MORGAN 103 DELIZIO LAW, PLLC IBM RALEIGH IPLAW (DL) VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte REDDY K V 13226331 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 102/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm DAILEY, THOMAS J

2473 Ex Parte Hyslop et al 12027202 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD NGO, NGUYEN HOANG

2492 Ex Parte Metke et al 12942374 - (D) Per Curiam 103 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. MEJIA, FELICIANO S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2647 Ex Parte Jovicic et al 12164455 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED FLEMING-HALL, ERICA L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Negley 12241665 - (D) BEST 103 MYERS BIGEL & SIBLEY, P.A. CAMPBELL, SHAUN M

2836 Ex Parte Vanderzon 13727198 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 Klauber & Jackson LLC THOMAS, LUCY M

2887 Ex Parte Mayo et al 13341072 - (D) KENNEDY 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP WALSH, DANIEL I

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Tsay et al 12844517 - (D) FETTING 103 41.50 103 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM / Yahoo! GARTLAND, SCOTT D

3623 Ex Parte Beaman et al 12821755 - (D) FETTING 103 THOMAS E. TYSON IBM CORP. BROCKINGTON III, WILLIAMS

3623 Ex Parte NURMINEN 11746132 - (D) MEYERS 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. JACKSON, ERNEST ADEYEMI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Ryan et al 12613999 - (D) BROWNE 103 IR HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. GORMAN, ERIC DAVID

mayo, bilski, pitney bowes, boehringer, corkill, maziere, mentor, merck2, pharmastem, susi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Freer et al 11641362 - (D) METZ 112(1)/103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kirschner et al 11162178 - (D) PLENZLER 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP NGO, LIEN M

3765 Ex Parte Davis et al 10839695 - (D) GRIMES 101/102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HOEY, ALISSA L

“Phenomena of nature …, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). The machine-or-transformation test, while “a useful and important clue … is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.”’ Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010).

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) , 2103, 2106
...

See Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.”). See also Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[P]reamble language will limit the claim if it recites not merely a context in which the invention may be used, but the essence of the invention without which performance of the recited steps is nothing but an academic exercise.”).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111.02

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Alcorn et al 11737928 - (D) SIU 102 102/103 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. OBERLY, VAN HONG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Coalter et al 12032892 - (D) TORCZON 103 The Dow Chemical Company LU, C CAIXIA

1776 Ex Parte Kiener et al 12297666 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP JONES, CHRISTOPHER P

An obviousness rejection predicated on selection of one or more components from numerous possible choices may be appropriate if the prior art provides direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful. See PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed Cir. 2007). The fact that a reference “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citing In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed.Cir.1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations, even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among ‘thousands' of compounds”)); see also, In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

Corkill, In re, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.02(a) , 2107.02

Susi, In re, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) 2123, 2144.08

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte McDaniel 11603462 - (D) SIU 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION ROSWELL, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Hayhurst 10491511 - (D) SMITH 103 HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP HICKS, CHARLES N

2448 Ex Parte HILT 12965121 - (D) MacDONALD 251/102 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LUU, LE HIEN

The recapture rule prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims. See Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 27 USPQ2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 1412.02

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Lim et al 11240442 - (D) SIU 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY YANG, RYAN R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Morris et al 10768711 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD HESS, DANIEL A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Scott 11238794 - (D) MILLS 102/103 INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS GOOD, SAMANTHA M

Appellant argues that

MPEP §608.01(p) I.B., specifically states that limitations on incorporation by reference do not apply to establishing an earlier effective filing date. MPEP §608.01(p) I.B states:

The limitations on the material which may be incorporated by reference in U.S. patent applications which are to issue as U.S. patents do not apply to applications relied on only to establish an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120. Neither 35 U.S.C. 119(a) nor 35 U.S.C. 120 places any restrictions or limitations as to how the claimed invention must be disclosed in the earlier application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Accordingly, an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. See Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705, 1706-07 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
...

  Appellant argues that a Board Decision, Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (BPAI 1993) supports Appellant's priority position. (App. Br. 11.) We are not convinced by Appellant‟s citation to Maziere. We do not dispute that an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. That being said, the host document or parent application still must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. That has not been done in the present case.

Maziere, Ex parte, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) 608.01(p)

3742 Ex Parte Magg et al 10587162 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ALEXANDER, REGINALD

diamond1, comiskey, bilski, rice, gutta, exxon research, miller,

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/19/2011 1627 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/724,095 WALSH 103(a) Kevin D. Erickson Pauley Petersen & Erickson EXAMINER SOROUSH, LAYLA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/20/2011 3623 Ex Parte TEMPLETON 09/416,278 PETRAVICK 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 PETERS VERNY , L.L.P. EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V

See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (S. Ct. 1981); In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (declining to reach an obviousness rejection on appeal after concluding many claims were non-statutory under § 101); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 951 n.1 (noting that § 101 is a threshold requirement and that the Examiner may reject claims solely on that basis); In re Rice, 132 F.2d 140, 141 (CCPA 1942) (finding it unnecessary to reach rejection based on prior art after concluding claims were directed to nonstatutory subject matter); Ex Parte Gutta, 93 USPQ2d 1025, 1036 (BPAI 2009) (per curiam) (expanded panel) (precedential) (as the claims on appeal do not recite patent-eligible subject matter under § 101, the prior art rejections need not be considered).

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01

07/19/2011 3624 Ex Parte Troyer et al 10/652,139 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products &1amp; Design
07/19/2011 3764 Ex Parte Carvalho et al 10/040,575 CALVE 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/19/2011 2172 Ex Parte Beltran et al 10/781,307 DANG 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER ABDUL-ALI, OMAR R

07/19/2011 2174 Ex Parte Law et al 10/830,926 DANG 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER KE, PENG

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/20/2011 3652 Ex Parte Gifford et al 10/908,594 COCKS 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DELIO & PETERSON, LLC. EXAMINER RUDAWITZ, JOSHUA I

A claim is not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2001). Breadth in scope does not equal indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971).

Miller, In re, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/20/2011 1643 Ex Parte King et al 10/731,759 MILLS 103(a) COZEN O'CONNOR, P.C. EXAMINER SANG, HONG

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/20/2011 1782 Ex Parte Schryver 10/778,366 FRANKLIN 103(a) MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC EXAMINER AUGHENBAUGH, WALTER

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/20/2011 2168 Ex Parte Needham et al 10/880,301 CHEN 102(e) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N

2600 Communications
07/19/2011 2624 Ex Parte Baker et al 10/744,879 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER TUCKER, WESLEY J