cable

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Derrieu et al 10541217 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 CLARK & BRODY LIU, TRACY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte PARIKH et al 13246241 - (D) PINKERTON 102/103 Tarolli, Sundheim, Covell & Tummino LLP/Imagine Corporation HUQ, OBAIDUL

2486 Ex Parte SAID et al 13018241 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 HP Inc, CATTUNGAL, ROWINA J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Reid et al 13384348 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS TOMASZEWSKI, MICHAEL

3656 Ex Parte Stevens et al 12862329 - (D) LANEY 103 HONEYWELL/LKGlobal Patent Services LUONG, VINH

3657 Ex Parte Griffith et al 11462510 - (D) O'HANLON 103 Parsons Behle & Latimer BURCH, MELODY M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Hill et al 12039214 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 103 41.50 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP SCHUBERG, LAURA J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Andrade et al 09841644 - (D) MOORE 103 103 BANNER & WITCO FF , LTD SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2668 Ex Parte Su et al 12170427 - (D) HOWARD 103 103 Kristine Elizabeth Matthews CHEN, XUEMEI G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte McLaughlin 12756389 - (D) GUIJT 103 103 Conley Rose P.C STODOLA, DANIEL P

Moreover, as the Examiner correctly points out, gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence as to market share. See Ans. 17; see also Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.03(b) , 716.06 , 1504.03

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Ansari 12742068 - (D) LANEY 103 112(1) NIXON PEABODY LLP MYHR, JUSTIN L

3749 Ex Parte Fritsche et al 12912992 - (D) SCHOPPER 103 103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P,C, GORMAN, ERIC DAVID

3777 Ex Parte Kristofferson et al 11412614 - (D) KORNICZKY 103 103 THE SMALL PATENT LAW GROUP LLC GUPTA, VANI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Mercenier et al 13319943 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago NGUYEN, QUANG

1653 Ex Parte Schulz et al 11547104 - (D) MAJORS 103 Abel Law Group, LLP MACAULEY, SHERIDAN R

1663 Ex Parte Spangenberg et al 12669659 - (D) SCHNEIDER 103 Larson & Anderson, LLC PAGE, BRENT T

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Chen et al 13454693 - (D) LENTIVECH 102/103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise LO, ANN J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Earley et al 12875954 - (D) BUI 102/103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Fox RYAN, PATRICK A

2481 Ex Parte Yu et al 12170476 - (D) MOORE 103 Slater Matsil, LLP HESS, MICHAEL J

2487 Ex Parte Laksono et al 13297489 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 Garlick & Markison (VIXS) WERNER, DAVID N

2493 Ex Parte Gupta et al 13453688 - (D) ENGLE 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise LESNIEWSKI, VICTOR D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 Ex Parte Perner 13384004 - (D) JURGOVAN 102/103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise NORMAN, JAMES G

2859 Ex Parte Brown 12427892 - (D) GUPTA 103 PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP GRANT, ROBERT J

2875 Ex Parte Deprez et al 12440470 - (D) McMANUS 112(2)/102/103 Lumileds LLC BREVAL, ELMITO

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte HWANG et al 13222678 - (D) KIM 102 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C SITTNER, MATTHEW T

3692 Ex Parte DaCosta 12016827 - (D) WIEDER 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP JOHNSON, GREGORY L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Vo 13254461 - (D) O'HANLON 102 102/103 WITHERS & KEYS, LLC HOBAN, MELISSA A

3762 Ex Parte Betzold et al 11538711 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2) 103/double patenting Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) EVANISKO, GEORGE ROBERT

3763 Ex Parte Mustoe et al 12906719 - (D) SCHOPPER 103 Casimir Jones, S,C, HAYMAN, IMANI N

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2482 Ex Parte Costa et al 13080863 - (D) BARRY double patenting 102/103 41.50 double patenting DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP VAZQUEZ COLON, MARIA E

cable

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Neill et al 11609704 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 41.50 112(1) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD SHAH, SAMIR

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Luedtke 12309617 - (D) HUGHES 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP GEBRESENBET, DINKU W

2196 Ex Parte Sluiman et al 12365993 - (D) SHIANG 102 Rolnik Law Firm, P.C. IBM Corp. (AUS/RCR) CAO, DIEM K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Hilt et al 12707027 - (D) CRAIG 102/103 LEYDIG, VOIT AND MAYER HENRY, MARIEGEORGES A

2457 Ex Parte Pavot et al 12646299 - (D) KUMAR 102 Google Technology Holdings LLC/Fletcher Yoder PC RUBIN, BLAKE J

2479 Ex Parte Cheng et al 12237849 - (D) McMILLIN 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent NGUYEN, HANH N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte KOIKE 12946247 - (D) DELMENDO 112(2)/103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LAM, TUAN THIEU

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Gammon 11947233 - (D) FETTING 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

3651 Ex Parte Johansson 12743286 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP RANDALL, JR., KELVIN L

3657 Ex Parte Knowles 12679944 - (D) SMEGAL 103 41.50 112(1) SIEMENS CORPORATION MOMPER, ANNA M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Rudie 14032013 - (D) JESCHKE 103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. GIULIANI, THOMAS ANTHONY

3741 Ex Parte BRAUTSCH et al 12789029 - (D) REIMERS 103 41.50 112(2) BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC ALSTOM (RINGFENCE) MANTYLA, MICHAEL B

3766 Ex Parte Corndorf et al 12363109 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BEHRINGER, LUTHER G

3775 Ex Parte Schaller et al 12767245 - (D) BROWN 103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP COLEY, ZADE JAMES

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Ganey et al 12431920 - (D) CHEN 102/103 101 41.50 101 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES KHOO, STACY

2695 Ex Parte Alameh et al 12428266 - (D) HOWARD 103 112(2) Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A./Motorola MERCEDES, DISMERY E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Radu 13086025 - (D) HILL 103 103 41.50 103 WALKER & JOCKE CHAPMAN, JEANETTE E

The Declaration additionally fails to establish sufficient evidence of commercial success, because gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence of market share. Cable Electric Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770, F.2d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.03(b) , 716.06 , 1504.03

3647 Ex Parte Vorwald et al 12855722 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 112(2) NSWC - CARDEROCK DIVISION XAVIER, VALENTINA

3692 Ex Parte Connors 13170287 - (D) HOSKINS 102/103 112(2)/103 PERGAMENT & CEPEDA LLP EBERSMAN, BRUCE I

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Warder-Gabaldon et al 11868431 - (D) HOSKINS 102/103 112(2)/103 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Popp 12215720 - (D) FREDMAN 103 SMP Logic Systems ALLEY, GENEVIEVE S

1619 Ex Parte Copp-Howland et al 12423929 - (D) FREDMAN 103/double patenting Covidien GOTFREDSON, GAREN

1657 Ex Parte Draghia-Akli et al 12126611 - (D) MILLS 103 Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. UNDERDAHL, THANE E

1677 Ex Parte Gordon et al 12955150 - (D) FREDMAN 103 double patenting WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER BROWN, MELANIE YU

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Brandon et al 12272829 - (D) OWENS 102/103 McDonald Hopkins, LLC GILLIAM, BARBARA LEE

1776 Ex Parte Clarke et al 13204529 - (D) WARREN dissenting in part ROESEL 112(1)/double patenting 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP THERKORN, ERNEST G

1792 Ex Parte Spisak 11431302 - (D) GARRIS 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP LONG, LUANA ZHANG

1798 Ex Parte Neeper et al 13334619 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 Perman & Green, LLP WRIGHT, PATRICIA KATHRYN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Billsus et al 12717091 - (D) KUMAR 103 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. / PayPal VU, THONG H

2167 Ex Parte Honkola et al 13332763 - (D) DANG 102 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. HOANG, HAU HAI

2168 Ex Parte Fredericks 12475358 - (D) WINSOR 103 INSKEEP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP, INC MORRISON, JAY A

2172 Ex Parte Maetzler et al 12774144 - (D) NAPPI 112(1)/112(2)/103 DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP BADAWI, ANGIE M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Das et al 12827028 - (D) HUME 102/103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise DUONG, OANH

2457 Ex Parte Pandya 12693952 - (D) DANG 103 Armstrong Teasdale LLP BURGESS, BARBARA N

2468 Ex Parte Lindgren 11474793 - (D) STRAUSS 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD CHU, WUTCHUNG

2492 Ex Parte AAD et al 12718521 - (D) BAER 101/102/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. KORSAK, OLEG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Edecker et al 10943041 - (D) KUMAR 103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago YANG, ANDREW GUS

2653 Ex Parte Caraballo et al 12037786 - (D) NAPPI 101/103 CRGO LAW TESHALE, AKELAW

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte DEN BESTEN 13297478 - (D) KENNEDY 103 NXP B.V. KIM, JUNG H

2852 Ex Parte Eynav 12904150 - (D) KENNEDY 102 AQUILLA PATENTS & MARKS PLLC SMITH, LINDA B

2855 Ex Parte Bader 12921322 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP CHAPMAN JR, JOHN E

2856 Ex Parte Lavon et al 12243511 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS & GREEN, PA KOLB, NATHANIEL J

2872 Ex Parte Weibezahn et al 12631972 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHWASZ, JADE R

2875 Ex Parte Kuczynski et al 12903628 - (D) SMITH 103 Chris Kuczynski, Esq. TUMEBO, TSION M

2894 Ex Parte LEE et al 11967439 - (D) TIMM 103 Additon, Higgins & Pendleton, P.A. NGUYEN, DUY T V

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Hicks et al 11932711 - (D) FETTING 103 Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP MANDEL, MONICA A

3626 Ex Parte Esposito 12362197 - (D) BAYAT 103 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP SOREY, ROBERT A

3626 Ex Parte Haney 12220370 - (D) MEYERS 103 WILEY HORTON LUBIN, VALERIE

3695 Ex Parte Raitsev et al 11743243 - (D) MEYERS 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD., KANG, IRENE S

3696 Ex Parte Understein 13630385 - (D) HUTCHINS 101 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC TROTTER, SCOTT S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Kelley 12834493 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLP ALEMAN, SARAH WEBB

3775 Ex Parte HULLIGER et al 12774308 - (D) STAICOVICI 112(2)/102 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP COLEY, ZADE JAMES

3776 Ex Parte Bouix et al 12115583 - (D) BROWN 103 Mimi Yang MANAHAN, TODD E

3777 Ex Parte Cholette 12112930 - (D) BROWN 102/103 41.50 103 PACESETTER, INC. BRUTUS, JOEL F

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Hartshorn et al 12110018 - (D) HUME 103 CRGO LAW TAN, ALVIN H
AFFIRMED-IN-PART 2433 Ex Parte Chuang et al 11453725 - (D) KOHUT 103 102/103 41.50 103 Haynes and Boone, LLP ANDERSON, MICHAEL D

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex parte AVIGILON CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7382277 et al 11/156,380 90012419 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP MR. CHRISTOPHER JOHN ROURK JACKSON WALKER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MARK S. HUBERT ENGLAND, DAVID E. original CROSLAND, DONNIE L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2873 LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD., Requester, v. FUJIFILM CORP., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7535658 et al 11/932,081 95001450 - (D) SIU 103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (PA) THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PERKINS COIE LLP HUGHES, DEANDRA M original COLLINS, DARRYL J

huang, cable, baxter travenol

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Attarwala et al 12562603 - (D) PAK concurring-in-part SMITH 102 Henkel Corporation DOLLINGER, MICHAEL M

1776 Ex Parte Hecker 12116545 - (D) KOKOSKI 102/103 Jason P. Webb SMITH, DUANE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Dexter et al 12035587 - (D) LORIN 103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (PA) AL HASHEMI, SANA A

2166 Ex Parte Patton 10857343 - (D) DESHPANDE 102 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. PHAM, KHANH B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Nielsen et al 11261130 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HON, MING Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Hong 11809715 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Scheinberg & Associates, PC IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

3638 Ex Parte Dickert 12180247 - (D) SMEGAL 103 41.50(b) 112(2) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD KIM, SHIN H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Hall 12657364 - (D) ASTORINO 103 HUDAK, SHUNK & FARINE, CO., L.P.A. CHOI, STEPHEN

3745 Ex Parte Erickson et al 11548791 - (D) BROWNE 103 Sutherland GE NGUYEN, NINH H

3766 Ex Parte Bonde et al 11739982 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Ding et al 11966894 - (D) JENKS 102 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC YOO, SUN JAE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Korolik et al 12555217 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/112(2)/102/103/obviousness-type double patenting MPG, LLP and Lam Research Corp. MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

1783 Ex Parte Fensel et al 11651976 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FAY SHARPE LLP VAN SELL, NATHAN L

1791 Ex Parte Ledon et al 11910718 - (D) SMITH 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. BADR, HAMID R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte McDonough 11241819 - (D) RUGGiERO 103 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP STRONCZER, RYAN S

2453 Ex Parte Lioy et al 11193068 - (D) EVANS 101/102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C

2476 Ex Parte Pierce 11914269 - (D) DILLON 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SLOMS, NICHOLAS

2491 Ex Parte Suzuki 11653424 - (D) EVANS 103 Studebaker & Brackett PC LAGOR, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Ryan et al 11513357 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. MA, TIZE

2683 Ex Parte Meyer 11557001 - (D) DIXON 103 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON YANG, JAMES J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Saad et al 11576488 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS CWERN, JONATHAN

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2472 Ex parte ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC 90012114 RE41,531 11/859,364 HUGHES 103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC YIGDALL, MICHAEL J original NGUYEN, BRIAN D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 ENVISIONWARE, INC. Requester v. 3M COMPANY and 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95001344 6486780 09/619,220 CURCURI, 103 SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original MULLEN, THOMAS J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 GOOGLE, INC. and MICROSOFT CORP. Requesters and Respondents, v. PAID SEARCH ENGINE TOOLS, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant. 95001863 7,974,912 11/379,897 HOFF 102/103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP WORJLOH, JALATEE original AKINTOLA, OLABODE

Our reviewing court has noted in the past that evidence related solely to the number of units sold provides a very weak showing of commercial success, if any. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (finding that sales of 5 million units represents a minimal showing of commercial success because “[w]ithout further economic evidence . . . it would be improper to infer that the reported sales represent a substantial share of any definable market”); see also In re Baxter Travenol Lab., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985)  716.03(b),   716.06,   1504.03

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01, 2145

boehringer, stencel, Jung, tiffin, joy technologies, huang, cable, standish, ariad, reiffin, lockwood, barker, vas-cath

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Thastrup et al 10/072,036 GREEN 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) Workman Nydegger EXAMINER BURKHART, MICHAEL D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Desai et al 10/288,126 TIMM 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Cabillic et al 11/186,036 JEFFERY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kim 10/216,875 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2451 Ex Parte McDougall et al 10/284,966 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Lilleness et al 10/287,337 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER PHAM, TAMMY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Robinson et al 11/265,364 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHARIFZADA, ALI R

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Krafft et al 11/100,212 GRIMES 102(b) Jane Massey Licata, Esquire Licata & Tyrrell P.C. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Muller et al 11/040,270 COURTENAY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER TANK, ANDREW L

We also broadly but reasonably construe the “configured to render an arrangement . . . .” language of claim 1 as a statement of intended use or purpose. (emphasis added) “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim's preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02
...
See In re Jung, No. 2010-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 at 7 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(“Jung argues that the Board gave improper deference to the examiner’s rejection by requiring Jung to‘identif[y] a reversible error’ by the examiner, which improperly shifted the burden of proving patentability onto Jung. Decision at 11. This is a hollow argument, because, as discussed above, the examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation and the burden was properly shifted to Jung to rebut it. . . . ‘[R]eversible error’ means that the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong . . . .”).

2192 Ex Parte Bagley et al 10/852,908 BARRY 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BUI, HANH THI MINH
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/026,043 MacDONALD 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER KIM, JUNG W
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lindskog 10/502,018 SAADAT 103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Bodine et al 10/943,795 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DURAND, PAUL R

Objective evidence of non-obviousness, including commercial success, must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 197 1) (evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). In order to be commensurate in scope with the claims, the commercial success must be due to claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features. Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 229 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226, 228 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Features responsible for commercial success were recited only in allowed dependent claims, and therefore the evidence of commercial success was not commensurate in scope with the broad claims at issue.). An inventor’s opinion as to the purchaser’s reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus between the sales and the claimed invention. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence as to market share, Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27 (Fed. Cir. 1985), or as to the time period during which the product was sold, or as to what sales would normally be expected in the market, Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454, 1458 (BPAI 1988).

Tiffin, In re, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04, 2142

Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp 225, 17 USPQ2d 1257 (D.D.C. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.03(a)

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . 716.03(b), 716.06, 1504.03

Standish, Ex parte, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) .716.03(a), 716.03(b), 2138.01
3738 Ex Parte Calandruccio et al 10/842,030 BAHR 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D

3772 Ex Parte Masini 10/872,717 O’NEILL 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PATEL, TARLA R

[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. . . . [T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed. . . . This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.

Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). See also Vas-Cath at 1563-64.

New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. Written description support can be either express or inherent, and is determined from the disclosure considered as a whole. Reiffin v. Microsoft, 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That one of ordinary skill in the art might see the scenario asserted by Appellant as possible within the context of the description in Appellant’s Specification is insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See, e.g., Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Wohnsiedler, 315 F.2d 934, 937 (CCPA 1963). See also In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977):

That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that [the] step is part of appellants’ invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of § 112.

Precisely how close the original description must come to comply with the description requirement must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The primary consideration is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure. See Vas-Cath at 1561-63.

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163

tiffin, remark, huang, cable

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

3673 Ex Parte Martin 11/221,324 SCHAFER 102(b)/103(a) BEYERS COSTIN, P.C. EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1644 Ex Parte Seed et al 10/960,442 FREDMAN 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) QUINE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, P.C. EXAMINER DAHLE, CHUN WU

See In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971) (“objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”)(evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). ...

In the case of evidence of commercial success, the Federal Circuit has acknowledged that the Appellant bears the burden of establishing a nexus, stating:

In the ex parte process of examining a patent application… the PTO lacks the means or resources to gather evidence which supports or refutes the applicant's assertion that the sales constitute commercial success. Cf. Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1503 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990) (evidentiary routine of shifting burdens in civil proceedings inappropriate in ex parte prosecution proceedings because examiner has no available means for adducing evidence). Consequently, the PTO must rely upon the applicant to provide hard evidence of commercial success.

In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). ...

Rather than supporting a conclusion of obviousness, copying could have occurred out of a general lack of concern for patent property, in which case it weighs neither for nor against the nonobviousness of a specific patent. It may have occurred out of contempt for the specific patent in question, only arguably demonstrating obviousness, or for the ability or willingness of the patentee financially or otherwise to enforce the patent right, which would call for deeper inquiry. Even widespread copying could weigh toward opposite conclusions, depending on the attitudes existing toward patent property and the accepted practices in the industry in question. It is simplistic to assert that copying per se should bolster the validity of a patent.
Cable Elec. Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
1648 Ex Parte Jones et al 10/326,908 SCHEINER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER HORNING, MICHELLE S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Blaker et al 09/845,432 HOMERE 101/102(b) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Lindstrom 10/557,666 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN EXAMINER ZHANG, JUE

REHEARING

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2448 Ex Parte Hessmer et al 09/954,423 HOMERE 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T