SEARCH

PTAB.US

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Showing posts with label biomedino. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biomedino. Show all posts

Friday, August 21, 2020

biomedino, medical instrumentation



custom search

REVERSED 
1611 Noha Elmouelhi et al. 13340405 - (D) ADAMS 103/OTDP Roberts Calderon Safran & Cole, P.C. BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

1794 SULZER METAPLAS GMBH 14188134 - (D) RANGE 112(1)/112(2)/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. BAND, MICHAEL A

1798 Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Products GmbH 15454868 - (D) CASHION 103 Dugan & Dugan, PC WRIGHT, PATRICIA KATHRYN

2176 Eftekhari, Amir et al. 13195298 - (D) KHAN 103 Patterson + Sheridan, LLP - Intuit Inc. NGUYEN, MAIKHANH

2413 Lindoff, Bengt et al. 14116955 - (D) KUMAR 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson FAYED, RASHA K

2488 Christophe Chevance et al. 14348107 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 Volpe and Koenig, P.C. and InterDigital EDWARDS, TYLER B

2696 Alexander Schoenen et al. 14818170 - (D) HAGY 103 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)(Google) MONK, MARK T

2698 Imagination Technologies Limited 13721286 - (D) DIXON 103 Imagination Technologies SPINKS, ANTOINETTE T

2872 Griffin, Richard A. 14126056 - (D) BRADEN 103 Seyfarth Shaw LLP WILKES, ZACHARY W

3619 PRECISION PLANTING LLC 14437995 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 AGCO Corporation, IP Legal
TORRES, ALICIA M

3621 Sundaresan, Neelakantan 11647544 - (D) MURPHY 101/103 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (eBay Inc.) BEKERMAN, MICHAEL

3642 THE BOEING COMPANY 15652433 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 The Small Patent Law Group LLC WOLDEMARYAM, ASSRES H

3691 Amazon Technologies, Inc. 14300117 - (D) BARRY 101/103 Kowert Hood Munyon Rankin & Goetzel (Amazon) AKINTOLA, OLABODE

3694 VAANANEN, Mikko 15412087 - (D) MURPHY 101 Mikko Kalervo Vaananen
RANKINS, WILLIAM E

3771 Medtronic, Inc. 14872770 - (D) HILL 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CVG) ROSEN, ERIC J

3771 National University of Ireland Galway 15008057 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
1736 ArcelorMittal 14615125 - (D) MCGEE Dissenting MCMANUS 103 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC WALCK, BRIAN D

2196 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD. 14015947 - (D) MORGAN 103 103 Baker Botts L.L.P./Samsung PATEL, HIREN P

2663 ORCAM TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 14807321 - (D) BARRY 112(2)/101 112(2)/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP MOYER, ANDREW M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 14912175 - (D) BAYAT 103 112(2)/102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY BURKE, THOMAS P

3795 Schaaf, Hansgeorg 12674636 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 112(2) BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. BOLER, RYNAE E

3799 Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft 14863737 -(D) HOSKINS 112(1)/112(2)/112(6) 112(2)/112(6)/103 CROWELL & MORING LLP NGUYEN, NGOC T

“[I]n return for generic claiming ability, the applicant must indicate in the specification what structure constitutes the means,” because if the specification is not clear in this regard, “the patentee has not paid the price [demanded by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)] but is rather attempting to claim in functional terms unbounded by any reference to structure in the specification.”  Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 948 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting, in part, Medical Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).  In short: “The duty of a patentee to clearly link or associate structure with the claimed function is the quid pro quo for allowing the patentee to express the claim in terms of function under” 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).  Medical Instrumentation, 344 F.3d at 1211. 

Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 83 USPQ2d 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2163 , 2181

Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 68 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2181 , 2182

AFFIRMED 
1613 AVANTOR PERFORMANCE MATERIALS, LLC 15398207 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP HUANG, GIGI GEORGIANA

1616 William P. Clinton et al. 11638450 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 DENTONS US LLP CHUI, MEI PING

1717 Steven Glenn. Keener et al. 13964713 - (D) HEANEY 103 DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. TADESSE, YEWEBDAR T

1791 Givaudan S.A. 14391764 - (D) CASHION 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA DEES, NIKKI H

2111 QUALCOMM Incorporated 15202207 - (D) CRAIG 101 Patterson + Sheridan, L.L.P. Qualcomm NGUYEN, THIEN DANG

2163 HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY L.P. 14388177 - (D) SHAW 112(1) 103 MICRO FOCUS LLC MIAN, MUHAMMAD U

2424 Walter Dees et al. 14770838 - (D) KUMAR 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R

2441 SUNDERMEYER, Ken et al. 13104932 - (D) SHAW 103 BakerHostetler / Comcast 
HIGA, BRENDAN Y

2468 Google LLC 15396512 - (D) KUMAR 103 GOOGLE Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP PATEL, PARTHKUMAR

2659 Oracle International Corporation 14243591 - (D) CUTITTA 101 TUCKER ELLIS LLP KIM, JONATHAN C

2884 Petersson, Sture et al. 13462060 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP LEE, SHUN K

3621 Facebook, Inc. 14527151 - (D) COURTENAY 101 Facebook/Fenwick ELCHANTI, TAREK

3623 International Business Machines Corporation 14449973 - (D) MORGAN 101/103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: Fabian Vancott BOYCE, ANDRE D

3623 International Business Machines Corporation 14708842 - (D) MORGAN 101/103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: Fabian Vancott BOYCE, ANDRE D

3624 Poole, John et al. 14209175 - (D) STRAUSS 101 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP MISIASZEK, AMBER ALTSCHUL

3625 My World, Inc. 14611995 - (D) CALVE 112(1) 112(1)112(2)/101/102/103 PATENT LAW GROUP: Atkins and Associates P.C. RAMPHAL, LATASHA DEVI

3629 McLaughlin, Michael 12728121 - (D) PINKERTON 101/103 TI Law Group, PC BAHL, SANGEETA

3678 KEPPEL OFFSHORE & MARINE TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PTE LTD 14782546 - (D) HILL 103 BakerHostetler ANDRISH, SEAN D

3684 Geng Zhu et al. 14586475 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 101 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY MILLER, BRITTNEY N

3685 Benjamin T. Wallach 11464143 - (D) McNEILL 102 112(1)/101/103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP QAYYUM, ZESHAN

3691 Groupon, Inc. 14454695 - (D) EVANS 101 ALSTON & BIRD LLP KANERVO, VIRPI H

3694 Feinstein, Jeffrey A. et al. 12939975 - (D) BAUMEISTER 101 Mintz Levin/Fair Isaac Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. SHAIKH, MOHAMMAD Z

3695 Clifford J. Weber et al. 14822355 - (D) HUME 112(1)/101 103/OTDP IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US) POLLOCK, GREGORY A

3697 Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. 15232224 - (D) RAEVSKY 101 Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/CME TRAN, HAI

3723 Phillips, Heather 12666262 - (D) DOUGAL 112(2)/103 103 Brian Tucker Kirton McConkie
SCRUGGS, ROBERT J

3734 Sonoco Development, Inc. 14928489 - (D) KERINS 103 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP ATTEL, NINA KAY

3772 Dora Ricci et al. 14564310 - (D) HOELTER 112(1)/103 Kloss, Stenger & LoTempio
KALACH, BRIANNE E

3799 SHELL OIL COMPANY 15029207 - (D) FITZPATRICK 112(1)/112(2) SHELL OIL COMPANY STCLAIR, ANDREW D

REHEARING

GRANTED 
3675 Song Li 14449003 - (R) SCHOPFER 102/103 41.50 112(2) Pilloff Passino & Cosenza LLP AHMAD, FARIA F

DENIED 
3688 Kohn, Jeffrey 13952572 - (R) MEYERS 112(2)/101/103 Richards Patent Law P.C. 
SUMMERS, KIERSTEN V
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

mars, biomedino

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2647 Ex Parte Park et al 11299466 - (D) HUME 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. REGO, DOMINIC E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Joo 12078114 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP BEKERMAN, MICHAEL

3664 Ex Parte Irish et al 10774301 - (D) PETRAVICK 102 CASCADIA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANCHO, RONNIE M

3693 Ex Parte Singhal 10091882 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1)/103 Tara Chand Sighal MAGUIRE, LINDSAY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Haselhuhn et al 11579707 - (D) GRIMES 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

3738 Ex Parte Wang 12101041 - (D) SNEDDEN obviousness-type double patenting SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

3767 Ex Parte Courtney et al 10903523 - (D) GREEN 102/103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP THOMAS, JR, BRADLEY G

3784 Ex Parte Street et al 10220678 - (D) KILE 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP JIANG, CHEN WEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2134 CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. Requester v. SSL SERVICES, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 95001447 6907530 09/764,459 ARBES 112(1) 112(2)/103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original TRAN, TONGOC

Because it is based on claim interpretation, indefiniteness is a question of law. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 949 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2181, 2185

See Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (transitional, open-ended terms “comprising” and “including” are synonymous).

Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 71 USPQ2d 1837 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2111.03

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 AIRCRAFT MEDICAL LTD. Requester and Appellant v. VERATHON INC. Patent Owner, Cross-Appellant, and Respondent 95000161 6543447 09/732,129 GUEST 314 112(1)/314/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 314/102/103 Foster Pepper PLLC FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original MITCHELL, TEENA KAY

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Danenberg 10426836 - (D) WALSH obviousness-type double patenting KENYON & KENYON LLP MUMMERT, STEPHANIE KANE

1655 Ex parte TALECRIS BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. Appellant 90010765 7544500 10/692,105 LEBOVITZ 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP CAMPELL, BRUCE R original FLOOD, MICHELE C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Uthe 11233885 - (D) DILLON 101/102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP QUELER, ADAM M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Mobin et al 11095770 - (D) SAADAT 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP KASSA, ZEWDU A

2695 Ex Parte Park et al 10678750 - (D) HUME 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP BIBBINS, LATANYA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Leyman et al 10555822 - (D) KOHUT 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP JOHNSTON, PHILLIP A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Latz 11351427 - (D) KIM 103 THE NOBLITT GROUP, PLLC LONG, FONYA M  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Tuma et al 11356737 - (D) PRATS 102 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP DANEGA, RENEE A
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Friday, February 17, 2012

aoyama, golight, cardiac pacemakers, med. instrumentation, larson, default proof, prater, biomedino, donaldson

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Garg et al 11/284,193 SMITH 103(a) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P

1729 Ex Parte Takeguchi et al 11/225,586 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, PATRICIA A

1761 Ex Parte Wenderoth et al 10/333,611 NAGUMO 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER OGDENJR, NECHOLUS

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Blandy et al 10/854,990 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, HETUL B

2193 Ex Parte Satoh et al 10/762,174 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER MAI, TAN V

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Iwasaki 10/588,935 HOFF 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER ALLEN, DANIELLE NICOLE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Norcom 11/068,092 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BRADEN, SHAWN M

3761 Ex Parte Parks et al 10/453,316 SAINDON 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Chandler 11/401,198 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HANDY, DWAYNE K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte DeCenzo 11/478,905 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V

“‘The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation. The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.’” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Fed. Cir. 2011, internal cites omitted).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte D. et al 10/620,044 Per Curiam 101/102(e)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER SINKANTARAKORN, PAWARIS

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Richards 11/375,319 FRAHM 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER EVANISKO, LESLIE J
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 6,672,187 et al Ex parte BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 90/010,445 LEBOVITZ 112(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1614 Ex Parte 6506400 et al ZUND SYSTEMTECHNIK AG & ZUND AMERICA, INC. Requester v. Patent of MIKKELSEN GRAPHIC ENGINEERING, INC. 95/001,354 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner JANSSON, SHUPE & MUNGER, LTD EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER REAMER, JAMES H

“The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2002). . . .

“The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” Golight, 355 F.3d at 1334. “Under this second step, structure disclosed in the specification is corresponding structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182

Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 63 USPQ2d 1725 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . 2181, 2182

Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 68 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . .2181, 2182
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Yudoovsky et al 12/246,086 GUEST 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R

In the “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer, the Examiner, for the first time, expresses an alternative rationale for unpatentability, which is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transform the RT2 and RT3 devices of Ohshimo into a single device, citing In re Larson, 340 F.3d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (Ans. 10). This abstract rationale is completely unrelated to the claim interpretation rationale of the Examiner’s stated rejections. We decline to consider this new rationale because it implicitly constitutes an unauthorized new ground of rejection. The “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer is not an appropriate place to raise a new rationale for unpatentability.

Larson, In re, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04

1731 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/374,238 SMITH 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1745 Ex Parte Gammons et al 11/459,625 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) KNOX PATENTS EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R

1764 Ex Parte Scherzer et al 11/813,833 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L

1766 Ex Parte Eipper et al 11/996,489 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER GULAKOWSKI, RANDY P

1782 Ex Parte Kendig et al 11/180,263 TIMM 102(e)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Graves et al 10/893,617 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HUQ, FARZANA B

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brandt 11/603,264 SIU 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Alverson et al 10/634,504 FISCHETTI 101/112(2)/103(a) ERNEST D. BUFF ERNEST D. BUFF AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. EXAMINER CHOI, PETER H

Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is indefinite because at best, the human involvement required in the claim fails to describe non-human structure and/or material, which perform the functions recited by the "means". See Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291 (fed. Cir. 2005), citing to In re Prater, 56 C.C.P.A. 1381, 415 F.2d 1393, 1398 (CCPA 1969) (“…a human being cannot constitute a “means”). The test is whether the Specification actually describes the structure that performs the claimed function. “If there is no structure in the specification corresponding to the means-plus-function limitation in the claims, the claim will be found invalid as indefinite.” Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).

Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 75 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . 2181

Prater, In re, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) . . .2106, 2111, 2172, 2173.05(a), 2173.05(q), 2411.01

Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . .2181, 2185

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . .2106, 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182
As to the latter activity, we find that

[s]imply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See [SiRF Tech, Inc. v. ITC, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)] (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.”).

Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 2012 WL 164439 at *17 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
3633 Ex Parte Snyder et al 11/561,468 SAINDON 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP EXAMINER GLESSNER, BRIAN E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Matsumura et al 11/172,058 KAUFFMAN 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )