curtiss-wright, comark

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte NWACHUKWU et al 13104396 - (D) LAVIER 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY KARPINSKI, LUKE E

1654 Ex Parte Ducry et al 14001237 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/112(2)/markush DORITY & MANNING, P.A. HEARD, THOMAS SWEENEY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Tamura et al 14375888 - (D) McCARTHY 103 WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER BUSE, MARK KENNETH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte McGarry et al 14038023 - (D) PESLAK 103 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC CHU, KING M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Maresca 14199950 - (D) ENGLE 112(1)/101 101 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. (Microsoft) OWYANG, MICHELLE N

The claims, however, do provide guidance as to the meaning of "storage device." In particular, claim 15 depends from claim 14 and further recites "the storage device is not a signal." Claim differentiation therefore suggests that claim 14 lacks the "not a signal" limitation of dependent claim 15 (i.e., that claim 14 includes a signal). See Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

"While we recognize that the doctrine of claim differentiation is not a hard and fast rule of construction, it does create a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope." Comark Commc 'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte BERNARD et al 15144034 - (D) CHEN 103 OTDP BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP TSVEY, GENNADIY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3783 Ex Parte Arnitz 13524760 - (D) BAHR 103 112(2)/103 Roche Diabetes Care, Inc. (DC) Woodard, Ernhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP PRICE, NATHAN R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Clark et al 12812519 - (D) FLAX 112(1)/103 POLSINELLI PC HUTSON, RICHARD G

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Walls et al 14356755 - (D) DELMENDO 103 OLIVE LAW GROUP, PLLC HUANG, CHENG YUAN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Fisher et al 13744519 - (D) BISK 103 Sheridan Ross P.C. WADDY JR, EDWARD

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Gautron et al 14875813 - (D) SHAW 101 PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia TSENG, CHARLES

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Aitken et al 11560930 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 CONLEY ROSE, P.C. POUNCIL, DARNELL A

3626 Ex Parte Jones et al 13492727 - (D) CUTITTA 101 Potomac Law Group, PLLC BURGESS, JOSEPH D

3683 Ex Parte Ng et al 14146038 - (D) JEFFERY 101/103 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP ULLAH, ARIF

3688 Ex Parte Lee et al 14738006 - (D) PYONIN 101 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP REAGAN, JAMES A

3691 Ex Parte Latimer 13362207 - (D) MEYERS 101 NCR Corporation KAZIMI, HANI M

3692 Ex Parte Shakkarwar 13567983 - (D) FETTING 101 Artegis Law Group, LLP FELTEN, DANIELS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Clark et al 13880084 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP Newhouse, Nathan Jeffrey

moncla, broadcom, ventana, martek, arlington, curtiss-wright, Phillips, ngai, king

REVERSED

1735 Ex Parte Ozkan et al 11/410,267 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER POLYANSKY, ALEXANDER

2111 Ex Parte Fischer et al 10/942,351 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER CLEARY, THOMAS J

2163 Ex Parte Feinberg 11/033,646 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER LEE, WILSON

2187 Ex Parte Kallahalla et al 10/959,536 BARRY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

When all other rejections on appeal have been reversed, and the only remaining rejection is a provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, it is premature to address the provisional rejection. Ex Parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1648 Ex Parte Wolff et al 11/828,272 GRIMES 102(b)/112(1) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER PARKIN, JEFFREY S

1731 Ex Parte Wanninger et al 10/058,832 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FELTON, AILEEN BAKER

“[E]ach claim does not necessarily cover every feature disclosed in the specification. When the claim addresses only some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to other, unclaimed features.” Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 689 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see also, Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[E]ven where a patent describes only a single embodiment, claims will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words of expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.”). Substantive differences between the claims “can be a ‘useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.’” Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. 632 F.3d 1246, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also, Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[C]laim differentiation takes on relevance in the context of a claim construction that would render additional, or different, language in another independent claim superfluous.”).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

3623 Ex Parte Schroeder et al 10/302,406 KIM 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V

3654 Ex Parte Szentistvany 10/524,122 BARRETT 103(a) Larson & Anderson, LLC EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3738 Ex Parte McCarthy et al 11/106,421 GREENHUT 102(e)/103(a) EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION EXAMINER MILLER, CHERYL L
AFFIRMED

1736 Ex Parte Jones et al 10/582,593 GAUDETTE 103(a) Albemarle Netherlands B.V. EXAMINER WALCK, BRIAN D

2128 Ex Parte Ould-Brahim 10/747,967 HUGHES 102(e)/102(b) RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP EXAMINER SILVER, DAVID

2617 Ex Parte Stephens 10/875,753 NAPPI 103(a) Thorpe North & Western LLP c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

3761 Ex Parte Long et al 11/511,573 GREENHUT 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

First, Appellants are not entitled to patent a known product by simply attaching a set of instructions to that product. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); See also, King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01