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

crown packaging, budde, cardiac pacemakers, med. instrumentation, b. braun

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Zeng et al 11/347,003 GAUDETTE 112(1) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

cf. Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., 98 USPQ2d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]hile Ball is correct in noting that the embodiment drawings in the specification all show chuck drive outside the reinforcing bead, that does not compel the conclusion that the written description is so narrowly tailored as to preclude Crown from claiming an embodiment that only utilizes the angled chuck wall solution.”).

1736 Ex Parte Elwart et al 10/767,339 GAUDETTE 103(a) ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE, LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, EDWARD M

1742 Ex Parte Boucherie 10/530,351 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Brummel et al 09/950,242 PETRAVICK 102(e) Epic c/o Boyle Fredrickson S.C. EXAMINER MORGAN, ROBERT W

3691 Ex Parte Carroll et al 10/680,020 LORIN 102(b)/103(a) Mr. Christopher John Rourk Jackson Walker LLP EXAMINER CAMPEN, KELLY SCAGGS
Construing means-plusfunction claim language in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, is a two-step process.

The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation. Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed.Cir.2001). “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. “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) (quoting B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997)).

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 58 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . 2181, 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

B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 43 USPQ2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . 2163, 2181, 2182Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Yao et al 11/375,966 NAPPI 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KLIMOWICZ, WILLIAM JOSEPH

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2743 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, L.P. Appellant 90/008,229, 90/010,044 and 90/010,130 5,974,120 BOALICK 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: REENA KUYPER, ESQ. BYARD NILSSON, ESQ. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTERS: NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP WELSH & FLAXMAN, LLC EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Allawi et al 11/266,723 McCOLLUM 103(a) Casimir Jones, S.C. EXAMINER
WOOLWINE, SAMUEL C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1747 Ex Parte Laskoski et al 11/851,411 PRATS 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER SHEH, ANTHONY H

1764 Ex Parte Laskoski et al 11/850,854 PRATS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER PAK, HANNAH J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Baek 10/970,517 LUCAS 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER CHAU, DUNG K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Lo et al 09/961,879 LUCAS 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Naghshineh et al 10/097,828 LORIN 112(2)/103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3686 Ex Parte Gortler et al 11/064,743 DESHPANDE 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER LE, LINH GIANG

NEW

REVERSED
1765 Ex Parte Pelliconi 10/551,679 GAUDETTE 102(e) DILWORTH IP, LLC EXAMINER NUTTER, NATHAN M
1778 Ex Parte Patil et al 11/339,106 103(a) GAUDETTE Gregory N. Clements Clements Walker EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O
2816 Ex Parte Welty 11/382,995 NAPPI 102(b) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER ALMO, KHAREEM E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1798 Ex Parte Bunyard et al 11/413,446 GARRIS 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEELE, JENNIFER A

2611 Ex Parte Agazzi 10/282,447 NAPPI 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER HA, DAC V

AFFIRMED
1622 Ex Parte Telschow 10/534,156 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER LOEWE, SUN JAE Y

1761 Ex Parte Kalyanasundaram et al 11/013,872 GAUDETTE 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER KOPEC, MARK T

1776 Ex Parte Cadours et al 11/014,788 GAUDETTE 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER
WU, IVES J

3744 Ex Parte Buckley et al 11/564,895 CHEN 102(b)/103(a) HITT GAINES P.C. EXAMINER ROGERS, LAKIYA G