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

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