brink, richardson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte ROTHBERG et al 13797871 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 41.50 103 LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Mills 13673323 - (D) CALVE 103 Leber IP Law ALKER, KATHLEEN IWASAKI

3656 Ex Parte Kawakami 10711611 - (D) HILL 103/double patenting DELAND LAW OFFICE LUONG, VINH

3657 Ex Parte Root et al 13077883 - (D) FENICK 102/103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Chi) BOWES, STEPHEN M

3681 Ex Parte Butler et al 12206836 - (D) MEYERS 102/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Caffey et al 13473012 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (BO) SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

3736 Ex Parte Baker et al 12165241 - (D) PRATS 102/103 Covidien LP FOREMAN, JONATHAN M

Given the absence of a specific description as to how Nagashimada’s device functions when using digital displays or clocks, we are not persuaded that Nagashimada’s disclosure of using digital displays or clocks demonstrates that its device makes an actual wait-time determination as Appellants’ claims 1 and 10 require, as opposed to the actually described determination of consistent absorbency readings, discussed above. See In re Brink, 419 F.2d 914, 917 (CCPA 1970) (“[I]f a reference is ambiguous and can be interpreted so that it may or may no[t] constitute an anticipation of an appellant’s claims, an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based upon the ambiguous reference is improper.”); see also Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (For a reference to anticipate a claim, “[e]very element of the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim.”).

Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 9 USPQ2d 1913 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2131

3738 Ex Parte Case et al 13444238 - (D) SCANLON 103 Buchanan Van Tuinen LLC SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

3747 Ex Parte Takeishi et al 13027577 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC LAGUARDA, GONZALO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Breternitz et al 13708090 - (D) KOHUT 103 103 41.50 101 Davidson Sheehan LLP Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. YU, JAEUN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Leo 13421927 - (D) WARNER 102/103 102/103 Hansen IP Law PLLC TRIEU, TIMOTHY K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Ma et al 12809747 - (D) SCHNEIDER 103 GLOBAL IP SERVICES BROWN, COURTNEY A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Alanzo et al 12989369 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(2)/103 Mossman, Kumar & Tyler PC NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Hwang et al 13980443 - (D) ENGLE 103 Jefferson IP Law, LLP SHELEHEDA, JAMES R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2845 Ex Parte Johansson et al 13643647 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1) 103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. SMITH, GRAHAM P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte OVICK et al 14511869 - (D) BEAMER 101 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI GART, MATTHEW S

3625 Ex Parte Yankovich et al 13051476 - (D) FENICK 101 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY HAQ, NAEEM U

3663 Ex Parte Judd et al 13268284 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG EVANS, GARRETT F

3665 Ex Parte Hua et al 13236350 - (D) WARNER 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP TORCHINSKY, EDWARD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Molinari et al 13720350 - (D) HOFFMANN 103/double patenting Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP/Nike STANCZAK, MATTHEW BRIAN

3742 Ex Parte LIU et al 14042778 - (D) CAPP 103 HODGSON RUSS LLP VAN, QUANG T

3745 Ex Parte Fuglsang et al 13500868 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER FLORES, JUAN G

3747 Ex Parte HAYMAN et al 12834420 - (D) ENGELS 103 Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (GM) KIM, JAMES JAY

3749 Ex Parte Sanchez-Molinero et al 12812396 - (D) KINDER 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. MCALLISTER, STEVEN B

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2665 Ex Parte Wallace 12415157 - (R) PYONIN 101/103 Vobach IP Law, LLC GORADIA, SHEFALI DINESH

anderson, brink

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Guisinger et al 12109991 - (D) BEST 102 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA POURBOHLOUL, SARIRA CAMILLA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Ougarov et al 11035774 - (D) NAPPI 103 BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Lin 11025133 - (D) ROBERTSON 112(1)/103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. IWARERE, OLUSEYE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte MOODY 11951303 - (D) SPAHN 103 JOHN EDWARD ROETHEL LAYNO, BENJAMIN

3734 Ex Parte Ungs 11184644 - (D) FREDMAN 102 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC STRANSKY, KATRINA MARIE

See In re Brink, 419 F.2d 914, 917 (CCPA 1970) (“if a reference is ambiguous and can be interpreted so that it may or may no [sic] constitute an anticipation of an appellant's claims, an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based upon the ambiguous reference is improper.”).

3734 Ex Parte Copa et al 10919775 - (D) WALSH 102/103 KAGAN BINDER, PLLC Dowe, Katherine

3762 Ex Parte Sommer et al 10635166 - (D) WALSH 102/103 Medtronic Inc. Alter, Alyssa

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Nguyen 11888489 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 HITT GAINES P.C. KAMPS, FRANCES H

3762 Ex Parte Adib 10942622 - (D) FREDMAN 132(a)/112(1) CHRISTENSEN, O'CONNOR, JOHNSON, KINDNESS, PLLC HOLMES, REX R  

“The question … is not whether "carrying" was a word used in the specification as filed but whether there is support in the specification for employment of the term in a claim; is the concept of carrying present in the original disclosure?” In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244 (CCPA 1973). “Mere rephrasing of a passage does not constitute new matter. Accordingly, a rewording of a passage where the same meaning remains intact is permissible.” MPEP § 2163.07.  

Anderson, In re, 471 F.2d 1237, 176 USPQ 331 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . 2163.07, 2181