proctor & gamble, o'farrell, mouttet, bush, cowles

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Conti et al 11836033 - (D) PRATS 103 Hogan Lovells US LLP PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN

As the Federal Circuit has explained, even post-KSR, “patents are not barred just because it was obvious 'to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.'” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

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

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Luhrs et al 12143398 - (D) LORIN 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C. PENNY, TABATHA L

1716 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 11046656 - (D) GARRIS 103 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. WALLACE DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR

1744 Ex Parte Sheehan et al 11895756 - (D) HASTINGS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HINDENLANG, ALISON L

1756 Ex Parte Stachowiak 11254672 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1779 Ex Parte Hudson 11755106 - (D) HANLON 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC BASS, DIRK R

1788 Ex Parte Stevens et al 11529181 - (D) Per Curiam 112(1)/103 Siemens Corporation CHANG, VICTOR S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Bryant et al 11130728 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC. ULRICH, NICHOLAS S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Goodman et al 11554052 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 FLEIT, GIBBONS, GUTMAN, BONGINI & BIANCO P.L. PAPPAS, PETER

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2655 Ex Parte Kurzweil et al 10179486 - (D) HOFF 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) LAO, LUNSEE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Lantier 12013840 - (D) ASTORINO 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. FIORELLO, BENJAMIN F

3683 Ex Parte Stolmeier et al 11443914 - (D) CRAWFORD 102 ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. McCarter & English LLP SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3685 Ex Parte Goldberg 10913140 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG QAYYUM, ZESHAN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Anderson 11685822 - (D) PLENZLER 103 DEERE & COMPANY LOPEZ, FRANK D

3761 Ex Parte Fabo et al 11794942 - (D) GRIMES 103 Ballard Spahr LLP SU, SUSAN SHAN

3767 Ex Parte Carlyon 12409133 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Covidien BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

3767 Ex Parte Weber et al 11068330 - (D) GRIMES 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES

3767 Ex Parte Reynolds et al 12009783 - (D) SCHEINER 103 Eric Fincham BOSWORTH, KAMI A

3773 Ex Parte Stokes et al 11394150 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EREZO, DARWIN P

3777 Ex Parte Gleich 10552808 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS GUPTA, VANI

3781 Ex Parte Young 11640178 - (D) SPAHN 103 GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP ALLEN, JEFFREY R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Nordenhake 11428590 - (D) WEINBERG 103 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER) ZAHR, ASHRAF A

Nevertheless, it does not matter which reference is primary and which reference is secondary. “[W]here the relevant factual inquiries underlying an obviousness determination are otherwise clear, characterization by the examiner of prior art as ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ is merely a matter of presentation with no legal significance.” In re Mouttet, 686. F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accord, In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961). In Bush, the Court stated

[W]e deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary. It would perhaps have saved much argument of the kind we have before us if the Patent Office had stayed with its rejection of the claims as unpatentable over A and B ‘considered together’ and had merely stated its reasons for such rejection without formal alinement [sic] of the references. Fifteen years ago this court pointed out in In re Cowles, 156 F.2d 551, 554, 33 CCPA 1236, that such differing forms of expression did not constitute different grounds of rejection, were of little consequence, and that basing arguments on them was ‘attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Wang et al 11844407 - (D) WARD 102 102 HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP RAMADAN, RAMY O

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte DiMaggio 10610681 - (D) GREENHUT 103 103 Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb & Soffen, LLP BUTLER, MICHAEL E

3655 Ex Parte Martin, III et al 11782685 - (D) SCANLON 103 102 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. CHAU, TERRY C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Krzysik et al 10957506 - (D) PRATS 103 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP Christopher M. Goff (27839) BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

1655 Ex Parte Decombaz et al 10570185 - (D) SCHEINER 103 K&L Gates LLP HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Witzke et al 11636742 - (D) BEST 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP SNELTING, ERIN LYNN

1761 Ex Parte Korzenski et al 11552808 - (D) SMITH 103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1765 Ex Parte Vilato et al 11630772 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. SEIDLECK, JAMES J

1765 Ex Parte Busico et al 11665706 - (D) OWENS concurring NAGUMO 112(2)/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC LU, C CAIXIA

1779 Ex Parte Moller et al 10978888 - (D) GARRIS 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP SIEFKE, SAMUEL P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Bare et al 11205358 - (D) MORGAN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN

2183 Ex Parte Koch et al 10521881 - (D) CURCURI 103 POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC GIROUX, GEORGE

2184 Ex Parte Katibian et al 11285400 - (D) DANG 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED HASSAN, AURANGZEB

2185 Ex Parte Khan et al 11591010 - (D) JEFFERY 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY YU, JAE UN

2187 Ex Parte Brown 11343698 - (D) WARD 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP BERTRAM, RYAN

2194 Ex Parte Berstis et al 10832036 - (D) ANDERSON 102/103 BIGGERS & OHANIAN (END) HOANG, PHUONG N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Tsai 11680356 - (D) DANG 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TEITELBAUM, MICHAEL E

2426 Ex Parte Faihe 10262383 - (D) McKONE 102 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ZHONG, JUN FEI

2442 Ex Parte Graupner et al 11158777 - (D) POTHIER 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, ANGELA

2451 Ex Parte Daniels et al 11085647 - (D) CURCURI 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP WOOLCOCK, MADHU

2455 Ex Parte Stratton et al 11520268 - (D) DANG 102/103 VERIZON LAZARO, DAVID R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Huegle et al 10554419 - (D) KILE 103 Cozen O'Connor SMITH, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Correia et al 11602137 - (D) GROSSMAN 103 TREGO, HINES & LADENHEIM, PLLC WHITE, DWAYNE J

3767 Ex Parte Albrecht 10943218 - (D) JENKS 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC HALL, DEANNA K

3773 Ex Parte Dubrul et al 10943121 - (D) MILLS 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC OU, JING RUI

3782 Ex Parte Nowak et al 11078032 - (D) O’HEARN 103 DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia PASCUA, JES F

yorkey, celeritas, crish, boyer, bush, kuhle, thompson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Verfaillie et al 10561826 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. WANG, CHANG YU

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Weismantel et al 12065123 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

Determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves two analytical steps: (1) the Board must interpret the claim language; and (2) the Board must then compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference."

Yorkey v. Diab, 605 F.3d 1297 (2010) (quoting In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998) (alteration in original))).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Xydis 09997299 - (D) HOMERE 103 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC PICH, PONNOREAY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Lunak et al 11423060 - (D) KAMHOLZ concurring SCANLON 103 103 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Buehlmeyer et al 12084162 - (D) OWENS 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION CORMIER, DAVID G

1733 Ex Parte Ougi et al 10855868 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. YANG, JIE

The elimination of a feature disclosed by the prior art, along with its attendant function, is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art. Application of Thompson, 545 F. 2d 1290, 1294 (CCPA 1976) Application of Kuhle, 526 F. 2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)

1782 Ex Parte Bartley et al 11840467 - (D) McKELVEY 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN

1793 Ex Parte DeSmidt et al 10918892 - (D) KIMLIN 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. WONG, LESLIE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11226693 - (D) JEFFERY 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. LUONG, ALAN H

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Chambers et al 10951930 - (D) KOHUT 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FISHMAN, LLP GENACK, MATTHEW W

2645 Ex Parte Link et al 11541916 - (D) McKONE 103 O'Shea, Getz & Kosakowski, P.C. MILLER, BRANDON J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Nathans et al 10392849 - (D) TURNER 103 Pay Rent, Build Credit, Inc. MONFELDT, SARAH M

In sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Board may rely on one reference alone without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, (CCPA 1966).

bush, rishoi, young, ariad, turbocare, purdue pharma

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Jansen et al 11/185,527 KATZ 103(a) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON, P.C. EXAMINER HEGGESTAD, HELEN F

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/754,994 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) PITTS & LAKE P C EXAMINER CONLON, MARISA

3682 Ex Parte Yeh et al 11/294,459 NAPPI 103(a) DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Trivedi et al 10/097,868 WINSOR 112(2)/103(a) 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER SOMERS, MARC S

Appellants’ argument relies on the order in which the references were discussed, which is “of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition,” In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961), and is unpersuasive.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Stookey et al 11/617,103 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) Faegre Baker Daniels LLP EXAMINER PATEL, YOGESH P
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Oda et al 11/220,402 SCHAFER 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Tracht 10/904,845 BARRETT 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION EXAMINER TO, TOAN C

3653 Ex Parte Kitching et al 10/758,065 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAEL E

See In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 345 (CCPA 1952) (“there is no patentable combination between a device and the material upon which it works” (citations omitted)).
...
In re Young, 75 F.2d 996 (CCPA 1935) (where a claim to a machine for making concrete beams was not patentable over the prior art, recitation in the body of the claim of the material worked upon, a concrete beam, did not lend patentability to that claim).

Young, In re, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115
3662 Ex Parte Mandel 10/367,027 HORNER 103(a) Yaron Nahum Mandel EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J

3738 Ex Parte Aram et al 11/171,180 PRATS 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD

See Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“We now reaffirm that § 112, first paragraph, contains a written description requirement separate from enablement . . . .”) (emphasis added).

As stated in TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001):

The written description requirement and its corollary, the new matter prohibition of 35 U.S.C. § 132, both serve to ensure that the patent applicant was in full possession of the claimed subject matter on the application filing date. When the applicant adds a claim or otherwise amends his specification after the original filing date . . ., the new claims or other added material must find support in the original specification.

It is well settled, however, that “[i]n order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 56 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2876 Ex Parte 6130931 et al Ex parte ELISABETH KATZ and INDUTCH PROCESS CONTROLS, INC. 90/010,580 09/156,078 EASTHOM 103(a) STOCKWELL & SMEDLEY, PSC EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original EXAMINER HO, ALLEN C

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3729 Ex Parte 6615485 et al Inter Partes FORMFACTOR, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. PHICOM CORPORATION Requestor, Respondent 95/000,358 10/034,543 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Ken Burraston/FormFactor KIRTON & MCCONKIE EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original EXAMINER ARBES, CARL J

bush, becton, CAE

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Berenstein et al 10/063,315 SCHEINER 103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3735 Ex Parte Shuros et al 11/616,073 WALSH 103(a) PAULY, DEVRIES SMITH & DEFFNER, L.L.C. EXAMINER TOTH, KAREN E

3739 Ex Parte Plaza 10/820,480 WALSH 103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F

3761 Ex Parte Hutson et al 10/308,703 SAINDON 103(a) Tessari Patent Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3761 Ex Parte Tabor et al 11/024,954 SAINDON 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Kolter et al 11/406,320 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER DICKINSON, PAUL W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Bulleit et al 10/858,366 DESHPANDE 103(a) 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - MB EXAMINER SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

The ordering of references in the rejection is insignificant in the Examiner's obviousness determination. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961) (“[W]e deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”).
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Eubanks 10/614,255 WALSH 103(a) Mary Wilkes Eubanks EXAMINER ROBINSON, KEITH O NEAL

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Lewis et al 10/299,284 NAPPI 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - Moazzam EXAMINER RAMPURIA, SHARAD K

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Abernathie 11/258,697 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) NEXXT Spine, LLC EXAMINER LUONG, PETER

“Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention”. Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
...
While we appreciate the Examiner’s point, it is disfavored to interpret a single element as satisfying two different limitations in a claim. See CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed.Cir.2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of... different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”).
REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Gellman et al 11/482,638 PRATS 102(b) Intellectual Property Dept./Dewitt Ross & Stevens Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation EXAMINER GROSS, CHRISTOPHER M

kronig, boyer, bush, hyatt2

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Weber et al 11/019,492 McKELVEY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER LISTVOYB, GREGORY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Stobbs et al 10/806,307 POTHIER 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M

2181 Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al 10/727,102 DESHPANDE 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHUN KUAN

2188 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/054,886 ZECHER 102(b) Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC EXAMINER GU, SHAWN X

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/952,708 KRIVAK 102(e) Synopsys/Fenwick EXAMINER KALAM, ABUL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Elgee et al 11/021,650 McCARTHY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MORRISON, THOMAS A

3657 Ex Parte Murakami 10/698,481 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/220,831 SAINDON 112(2)/103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC EXAMINER BERTHEAUD, PETER JOHN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Wei et al 12/283,347 ADAMS 112(1) 102(a,b) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER MONSHIPOURI, MARYAM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Bohannon et al 11/025,846 GONSALVES 103(a) 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAM LINH T

2161 Ex Parte Boss et al 10/992,572 DESHPANDE 103(a) 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU N

2179 Ex Parte Hymes et al 10/633,250 FRAHM 103(a) 103(a) FROST BROWN TODD LLC EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte McCall et al 10/956,426 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER JOSEPH, JAISON
AFFIRMED

1653 Ex Parte Kilminster 10/570,447 ADAMS 103(a) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC EXAMINER MARTIN, PAUL C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Wendker et al 12/093,097 MILLS 103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER KAUCHER, MARK S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Matthews et al 10/814,426 HUGHES 103(a) HOWISON & ARNOTT, L.L.P EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY

Although we apply a somewhat different reasoning than that provided by the Examiner, where, as here, the limitations at issue are found in a single reference and the thrust of the obviousness reasoning remains the same, the Board may rely on a single reference to affirm a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) without designating it a new ground of rejection. Reliance upon fewer references in affirming a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 does not normally constitute a new ground of rejection. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966); In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); see also Hyatt v. Doll, 576 F.3d 1246, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The Board cannot be said to have presented a new ground of rejection simply by elaborating on the examiner’s rejection or by using different words.”).

Kronig, In re, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207.03

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Gugliotta 11/293,756 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAUREN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Pommereau 10/525,900 ASTORINO 112(2)/102(b) 103(a) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAEL E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Savic et al 11/343,584 O’NEILL 102(b) Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus P.A. EXAMINER MAI, HAO D

bush

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Suda et al 10/540,632 WALSH 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Kannan et al 10/525,797 FRANKLIN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

1726 Ex Parte Schwab 10/578,461 COLAIANNI 102(b) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O

1735 Ex Parte Matsumoto et al 11/325,529 KRATZ 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P

1778 Ex Parte Grangeon et al 10/451,532 OWENS 103(a) CLARK & BRODY EXAMINER
KURTZ, BENJAMIN M

1778 Ex Parte Nakashima 11/090,081 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) JOHN K. CORBIN EXAMINER
REIFSNYDER, DAVID A

1781 Ex Parte Wilkey 10/369,363 PAK 103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

1781 Ex Parte Bartkowska et al 10/664,101 SMITH 102(a)/103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

1785 Ex Parte Hino et al 10/477,917 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L

1792 Ex Parte Selvamanickam et al 10/456,733 KRATZ 103(a) ABEL LAW GROUP, LLP EXAMIENR TALBOT, BRIAN K

1796 Ex Parte Zaschke et al 10/507,315 FRANKLIN 112(2)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Adler et al 10/095,797 WINSOR 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER
TRAN, QUOC A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Southern et al 10/034,446 PATE III 103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP - NEW YORK EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3644 Ex Parte Grauzer et al 10/998,048 PATE III 112(2)/112(1) Dickinson Wright PLLC James E. Ledbetter, Esq. EXAMINER SANDERSON, JOSEPH W

3644 Ex Parte Senter et al 11/233,558 ASTORINO 103(a) Setter Roche LLP EXAMINER SMITH, KIMBERLY S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Haas 09/967,500 PATE III 102(b) Mark A Litman and Associates, P.A. EXAMINER VO, PETER DUNG BA

3733 Ex Parte Teitelbaum 10/688,135 SAINDON 102(e)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER CUMBERLEDGE, JERRY

3767 Ex Parte Woehr et al 11/497,188 McCARTHY 112(2)/102(b) KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP EXAMINER MEHTA, BHISMA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Jaspers et al 11/547,098 PRATS 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Pitt et al 10/471,309 COLAIANNI 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Bergman et al 10/993,377 DANG 102(b)/103(a) TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, GRANT D

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Gabara et al 10/668,544 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER CASCA, FRED A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Hamakita et al 10/796,301 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER SCHARICH, MARC A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Janesky 10/978,643 SPAHN 103(a) Thomas L. Tully PERMAN AND GREEN EXAMINER DWIVEDI, VIKANSHA S

See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961) (“[W]here a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”).

3716 Ex Parte Locke 10/140,601 BARRETT 101/103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HSU, RYAN

3721 Ex Parte Wild et al 11/121,546 PATE III 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, THANH K
REEXAMINATION EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2851 Ex Parte 6454472B1 et al Ex parte SEMES COMPANY, LTD. Appellant 90/008,321 CHEN 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MARTIN M. ZOLTICK ROTHWELL FIGG ERNST & MANBECK P.C.EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER RUTLEDGE, DELLA J
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Di Salvo et al 11/554,214 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER HEYER, DENNIS

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/011,596 PAK 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER LIN, JAMES

1778 Ex Parte Rieth et al 10/960,132 COLAIANNI Dissenting NAGUMO 112(1)/103(a) CLAUDE ANDERSON EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O

1785 Ex Parte Poncelet et al 10/522,006 COLAIANNI concurring NAGUMO 102(e) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER JOY, DAVID J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Barlow et al 10/284,165 DANG 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Levy et al 10/060,049 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) DIGIMARC CORPORATION EXAMINER RAMAN, USHA

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Ignatin 10/938,095 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL

2618 Ex Parte Becker 10/533,728 KRIVAK 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER HU, RUI MENG

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Ramirez et al 10/758,845 SAINDON 112(1)/103(a) KANG LIM EXAMINER
WEBER, JONATHAN C

3644 Ex Parte Tsengas et al 10/963,953 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRINH T
REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Strang 10/469,592 HANLON 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER MOORE, KARLA A

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Lindell et al 10/481,053 COLAIANNI 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER FELTON, MICHAEL J

1775 Ex Parte West et al 10/701,097 COLAIANNI 103(a) EXAMINER BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

1782 Ex Parte Lehman 10/902,300 COLAIANNI 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A

1784 Ex Parte Takayama et al 11/042,187 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER SAVAGE, JASON L

minerals, wands, bush, EMI, raytheon

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Zojaji et al 11/242,613 SMITH 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Hinnebusch 10/015,866 KIM 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN

3643 Ex Parte Aandewiel et al 11/600,598 ASTORINO 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3663 Ex Parte Greatbatch 10/998,188 PATE III 112(1)/101/103(a) WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER MONDT, JOHANNES P

3682 Ex Parte Pudar 09/870,377 McCARTHY 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER MYHRE, JAMES W

3686 Ex Parte Diakides et al 11/222,947 KIM 103(a) NICHOLAS A. DIAKIDES EXAMINER
RAJ, RAJIV J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Ehrnsperger et al 11/251,311 PATE III 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916), which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.01

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Steinmetz et al 11/010,842 STEPHENS 103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, TANH Q

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Medendorp 10/644,354 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE

3688 Ex Parte Hoffberg et al 11/467,915 PETRAVICK 103(a) 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 Ostrolenk Faber LLP EXAMINER CHAMPAGNE, DONALD

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Sutherland et al 11/039,531 PATE III 103(a) EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO EXAMINER RICCI, JOHN A

As an initial matter we note that our reviewing court’s predecessor has stated that the order in which prior art is applied in a rejection is not significant. See, for example, In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, (CCPA 1961) ("[i]n a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be a matter of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.")

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte Tantivy Communications, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner TESCO CORPORATION
95/001,113 7,048,050 SONG 102/103(a) For Patent Owner: MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP For Third Party Requester : BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLPEXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 90/008,990 6,151,332 TURNER 103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER LAROSE, COLIN M

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Sigler et al 11/155,180 SMITH Concurring PAK 102(b)/103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER LAM, CATHY FONG FONG

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Whaley 11/127,049 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) Docket Clerk Dallas TX EXAMINER DANG, KHANH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Mastin Crosbie et al 09/793,355 MacDONALD 102(e) Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle EXAMINER OSMAN, RAMY M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Medendorp 11/708,818 DROESCH 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER CROWE, DAVID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Howell 11/634,454 HORNER 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3739 Ex Parte Prabhu et al 09/891,773 BAHR 102(e) Carestream Health, Inc. EXAMINER COHEN, LEE S

3748 Ex Parte Lifson 11/544,403 HORNER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TRIEU, THERESA

3774 Ex Parte Fariabi 10/750,079 HOELTER 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

3774 Ex Parte Trese et al 11/234,518 DELMENDO 101/112(1)/103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

“A claimed invention having an inoperable or impossible claim limitation may lack utility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and certainly lacks an enabling disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112.” EMI Group North America, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “When a claim itself recites incorrect science in one limitation, the entire claim is invalid, regardless of the combinations of the other limitations recited in the claim.” EMI, 268 F.3d at 1349.

Raytheon v. Roper, 724 F.2d 951, 220 USPQ 592 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . .2107.02, 2164.08
REHEARING

DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/429,507 GRIMES Technology Advancement Labs LLC EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY
NEW

REVERSED

3684 Ex Parte Foy et al 11/226,463 DESHPANDE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R

1765 Ex Parte Hulse et al 11/955,475 ROBERTSON 103(a) HONEYWELL/FOX ROTHSCHILD EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

1645 Ex Parte Miller 10/470,797 MILLS 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER TONGUE, LAKIA J

3691 Ex Parte Mitchell et al 10/169,501 CRAWFORD 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER ONYEZIA, CHUKS N

3685 Ex Parte Raley et al 10/388,162 FISCHETTI 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER KIM, STEVEN S

3624 Ex Parte Santos et al 10/378,872 MOHANTY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

1621 Ex Parte STAUFFER 12/632,840 ADAMS 103(a) YOUNG BASILE EXAMINER PARSA, JAFAR F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2114 Ex Parte JOHANSSON et al 11/834,731 POTHIER 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER CHU, GABRIEL L

3749 Ex Parte Schnell et al 10/413,018 BROWN 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER PRICE, CARL D

2453 Ex Parte Wilson et al 11/455,037 DROESCH 102(e)/103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T

AFFIRMED

2442 Ex Parte Beisiegel et al 10/489,051 MacDONALD 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NICKERSON, JEFFREY L

2183 Ex Parte Dieffenderfer et al 11/363,072 DANG 102(e)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S

2178 Ex Parte Lu et al 10/668,399 BARRY 103(a) IBM CORP (AP) EXAMINER QUELER, ADAM M

3632 Ex Parte MATIAS 11/735,523 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PERRY + CURRIER INC. EXAMINER KING, ANITA M

2166 Ex Parte Raley et al 11/141,229 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER TANG, JIEYING

2156 Ex Parte Recio et al 11/304,954 KOHUT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE

3774 Ex Parte Reed et al 11/252,169 HORNER 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

3715 Ex Parte Seelig et al 09/791,463 BROWN 102(e) IAN F. BURNS & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER MOSSER, KATHLEEN MICHELE

3644 Ex Parte Simoni 11/039,210 STAICOVICI 103(a) JACQUELYN R. SIMONI EXAMINER ABBOTT, YVONNE RENEE

3667 Ex Parte Turgeon 10/086,793 LORIN 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG

REHEARING

DENIED
2448 Ex Parte Traversat et al 10/055,645 KRIVAK 103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER LUU, LE HIEN