microsoft, internet patents, digitech, cybersource

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Liu et al 13156552 - (D) BEAMER 103 McClure Qualey & Rodack LLP BECK, LERON

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Zinn et al 11696888 - (D) WORTH 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 DURAN, ARTHUR D

3654 Ex Parte Suchecki 12902917 - (D) WORTH 112(2)/103 MCCOY RUSSELL LLP TRUONG, MINH D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Santos et al 12444000 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 ALCON LEE, WENG WAH

3788 Ex Parte Tang et al 12909999 - (D) HOELTER 103 ALCON RESEARCH, LTD. NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte SCHIER 12776110 - (D) WILSON 103 103 Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam) PHAM, THOMAS T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2691 Ex Parte Moore et al 13435140 - (D) KHAN 103 103 HP Inc. PARK, SANGHYUK

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Hoffmann et al 12452955 - (D) McMANUS 103 103 Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC KING, SUN MI KIM

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Chang et al 13483761 - (D) KATZ 103 IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. HUYNH, PHUONG N

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Lindfors 12154879 - (D) PRAISS 103 ZIEGLER IP LAW GROUP, LLC. BRATLAND JR, KENNETH A

1768 Ex Parte DES JARLAIS et al 13434698 - (D) INGLESE 103 Svendsen Legal, LLC CHANG, JOSEPHINE L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Dewall et al 13326928 - (D) WINSOR 103 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. RAYYAN, SUSAN F

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Mahendrakar et al 14246991 - (D) BUI 101 NEAL, GERBER, & EISENBERG SHAIFER HARRIMAN, DANT B

Nevertheless, information as such is intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007). Information collection and analysis, including when limited to particular content, is within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 USPQ2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 2106

Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2106

2445 Ex Parte Saunders et al 13831593 - (D) BUI 103 MPG, LLP and Zynga Inc. JAKOVAC, RYAN J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2653 Ex Parte Champion 13137552 - (D) SHAW 103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS, LLP SIEGEL, DAVID F

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Troesken et al 12735160 - (D) HORNER 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. NGUYEN, CHUONG P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Kotlyar et al 12420764 - (D) OSINSKI 103 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP - Colorado Springs FRISBY, KESHA

3735 Ex Parte Cohen et al 12592630 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 WILLIAM W. JONES KUHLMAN, CATHERINE BURK

3762 Ex Parte Kampa et al 12912563 - (D) MURPHY 103 PACESETTER, INC. FLORY, CHRISTOPHER A

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte HARPUR et al 13270422 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC LIN, SHERMAN L

CyberSource, CLS, Dealertrack, Fort Properties

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Kao et al 11354477 - (D) HOMERE 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW LEE, JASON T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Cummins 11482594 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 101/112(2) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101/112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BOSWELL, BETH V

We find that the recitation of an article to be nominal and that claim 14 is not “truly drawn to a specific computer readable medium, rather than to the underlying method” (CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374-75 (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317 (Fed Cir. 2012).

CyberSource HARMON 2: 2, 3, 6, 13-15

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Weinstein et al 11430108 - (D) BUI 102(b)/103 W. EDWARD RAMAGE UNG, LANNY N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2851 Ex Parte Fu et al 11841509 - (D) GAUDETTE 101/102(b)/103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. LIN, ARIC

2861 Ex Parte Simons 11802506 - (D) HASTINGS 102(b)/103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP GOLDBERG, BRIAN J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Szczygiel-Durante 12157943 - (D) McCOLLUM 102(b) IRVING KESCHNER NGUYEN, TRINH T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Landy et al 11218896 - (D) HOSKINS 103 MORRIS I. POLLACK MCCALISTER, WILLIAM M

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 STAPLES, INCORPORATED Requester and Cross-Appellant v. CONSUMERS INTERSTATE CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant 95001612 6,895,389 09/656,330 CURCURI 102(e)/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. CHOI, WOO H original SMITH, JEFFREY A

cybersource, lantech

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Steinmann et al 11115025 - (D) ANDERSON 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. UDDIN, MOHAMMED R

2193 Ex Parte Gustavson et al 11035933 - (D) MacDONALD 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC MALZAHN, DAVID H

“Regardless of what statutory category (‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,’ 35 U.S.C. § 101) a claim’s language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Giefer et al 10595502 - (D) KILE 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC JOHNSON, PHILLIP A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Horton 11937918 - (D) KAUFFMAN 112(1)/103 BRIGGS AND MORGAN P.A. PRONE, JASON D

3743 Ex Parte Tritz 11180866 - (D) SPAHN 103 Lesavich High-Tech Law Group, P.C. LU, JIPING

see also Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Machine Co., 32 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(in infringement context, a single conveyor held to not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors).

Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio, Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2145

3767 Ex Parte Obrigkeit 12108579 - (D) GRIMES 103 TERUMO CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS CORPORATION SCHELL, LAURA C

3773 Ex Parte Collier et al 11169869 - (D) JENKS 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON LAUER, CHRISTINA C

3778 Ex Parte Truschel et al 11327631 - (D) WALSH 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Leifermann et al 11407760 - (D) GREENHUT 102 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke) CUOMO, PETER M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Mitrani et al 11037123 - (D) PLENZLER 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) MORALES, JON ERIC C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Groppe et al 11915068 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP ROGERS, MARTIN K

1763 Ex Parte Khabashesku et al 12346729 - (D) NAGUMO 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC FINK, BRIEANN R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Jaakkola 11377454 - (D) McKONE 103 Nokia Corporation Squire Sanders (US) LLP AHMED, MOHAMMED

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Mennie et al 11920649 - (D) GROSSMAN 112(1) 103 Edwards Vacuum, Inc. SAVANI, AVINASH A

3767 Ex Parte OBRIEN et al 12004657 - (D) McCOLLUM 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. THOMAS, JR, BRADLEY G

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Ichihara 11004814 - (R) GONSALVES 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP GONZALEZ, AMANCIO

dealertrack, cybersource

4813934

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Eidenschink et al 11282252 - (D) FREDMAN 102 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Sima et al 11461767 - (D) THOMAS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY OKEKE, IZUNNA

2441 Ex Parte Mao et al 11850192 - (D) COURTENAY 101/103 Howard H. Sheerin, Attorney at Law HIGA, BRENDAN Y

2445 Ex Parte Hofmann et al 11563897 - (D) ANDERSON 101/102 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

“[A]dding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render [a] claim patent eligible” where the claims “are silent as to how a computer aids the method, the extent to which a computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method.” DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see MPEP § 2106(II)(B)(1)(a). Integral use of a machine or apparatus to achieve performance of the method weighs toward eligibility, as compared to where the machine or apparatus is merely an object on which the method operates, which weighs against eligibility. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); MPEP § 2106(II)(B)(1)(b) .

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2898 Ex Parte Mani et al 11736562 - (D) BUSCH 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP / AMAT ABDELAZIEZ, YASSER A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3742 Ex Parte Maev et al 11221545 - (D) OSINSKI 102/103 Chrysler Group LLC JENNISON, BRIAN W

classen, cybersource, research corp., santarus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Robert et al 10984252 - (D) SCHEINER 103 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Karve et al 11931565 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. LI, MEIYA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte King et al 11810943 - (D) PLENZLER 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. LEE, ERICA SHENGKAI

Although it is acknowledged that patent eligibility under § 101 is a course filter and that disqualifying abstractness of a claim must be manifest, that does not compel a conclusion that there is never a valid basis to hold that a claim is simply too abstract to qualify as patent eligible. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Research Corp. Techs, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec et al., 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Lubbers et al 11479365 - (D) DILLON 102 102/103 Seagate Technology LLC Hall Estill Attorneys at Law DOAN, DUC T

Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer. In fact, it is possible for the patentee to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same material.”).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Hung et al 09761893 - (D) ADAMS 103 Shih-Chieh Hung Dept. of Orthop. and Traumetology, Vet. General Hospital-Taipei DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Wu 11855243 - (D) METZ 103 Becton, Dickinson and Company YAGER, JAMES C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Rudolph et al 10936254 - (D) BENOIT 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Kuhl et al 11498758 - (D) DILLON 102/103 CROWELL & MORING LLP MORTELL, JOHN F

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Friedl et al 11797836 - (D) GONSALVES 102/103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC BUI, BRYAN
 
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2153 FACEBOOK, INC. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. PRAGMATUS AV, LLC Patent Owner and Respondent 95001715 7421470 10/721,905 ZECHER 102/103 Reed Smith LLP CHOI, WOO H original STRANGE, AARON N

2153 FACEBOOK, INC. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. PRAGMATUS AV, LLC Patent Owner and Respondent 95001716 7433921 10/722,051 ZECHER 102/103 Reed Smith LLP CHOI, WOO H original STRANGE, AARON N

2181 NVIDIA CORPORATION Requester and Appellant v. RAMBUS INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001472 6,715,020 10/037,171 SIU 103 Paul M. Anderson, PLLC ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN

van ornum, fallaux, cybersource

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Gerder-Kallisch et al 11243584 - (D) MILLS 102/103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC LIN, JERRY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Olds et al 10970424 - (D) WINSOR 103 HolzerIPLaw, P.C. LI, ZHUO H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Kim et al 09766473 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP AILES, BENJAMIN A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Woyzichovski 10501310 - (D) SMITH 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP BOCURE, TESFALDET

2617 Ex Parte Moganti 11026498 - (D) CALDWELL 102 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP RAMPURIA, SHARAD K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Tiramani 10653523 - (D) JUNG 103 112(2)/103 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellot, LLC CHAPMAN, JEANETTE E

3676 Ex Parte Vick et al 11409518 - (D) SCANLON 102/103 102/103 SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C. BOMAR, THOMAS S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Bergersen 10447099 - (D) McCARTHY 102 102 PATENTS+TMS, P.C. EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Birnbaum 11523508 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP RIDER, LANCE W

1638 Ex Parte Stomp et al 11590071 - (D) PRATS obviousness-type double patenting MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC ZHENG, LI

We are also not persuaded that the present fact situation, in which the two sets of conflicting claims are separately owned, precludes an obviousness-type double patenting rejection grounded in the possibility of harassment by multiple assignees. It may be true that issuance of the instant application would not result in unjustified timewise extension of patent rights.

However, in In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982), in a fact situation similar to that presented here, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals affirmed an obviousness-type double patenting rejection over a patent with a common inventor, despite a lack of common ownership. The court reasoned there that the concern over potential harassment of an infringer by multiple assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention outweighed the applicant‟s inability to proffer a terminal disclaimer tying together ownership of the application and conflicting patent. Id. at 944-48.

Van Ornum, In re, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . 804, 804.02

In In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313 (2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the Van Ornum rationale:

The harassment justification for obviousness-type double patenting is particularly pertinent here because the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents are not commonly owned. If the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents were commonly owned, the terminal disclaimer filed in this case would have been effective to overcome the double patenting rejection. We note that this defect was of the applicant‟s creation as through assignment it allowed ownership of the applications to be divided among different entities.

Id. at 1319 (footnote omitted).

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Ramachandran et al 11561868 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX CAMPBELL, NATASHA N.

1729 Ex Parte Budinski et al 11227771 - (D) KATZ 103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Frey et al 10040799 - (D) DANG 103 IBM Corporation John R. Pivnichny, Ph.D CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

2179 Ex Parte Celik 10233551 - (D) BLANKENSHIP 103 APPLE INC. c/o BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC HUYNH, BA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Numao et al 10600547 - (D) SMITH 103 LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR) TOLENTINO, RODERICK

2493 Ex Parte Whittaker et al 09952208 - (D) DIXON 112(1) 112(1)/103 IP STRATEGIES COLIN, CARL G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Morton 11876019 - (D) COURTENAY 103 GARLICK & MARKISON ALAM, FAYYAZ

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Cybulski et al 11173955 - (D) RUGGIERO 102 CYMER INC PARK, KINAM

2835 Ex Parte Hanks 09946130 - (D) COURTENAY 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DINH, TUAN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte O'SULLIVAN 11318972 - (D) TURNER 101/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP LAN, TZU-HSIANG

See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding method for verifying the validity of a credit card transaction over the Internet to be non-statutory as an abstract idea capable of being performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.)

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Aranyi et al 11728699 - (D) WALSH 103 Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien SONNETT, KATHLEEN C

3734 Ex Parte Patel et al 11466202 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Roche Diagnostics Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP YABUT, DIANE D

3767 Ex Parte Fitzgerald et al 12181673 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

3775 Ex Parte Roman et al 11402319 - (D) CAPP 103 Harness Dickey & Pierce (Biomet) WAGGLE, JR, LARRY E  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Jensen et al 10723423 - (D) ADAMS 103 VIKSNINS HARRIS & PADYS PLLP KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 GLOBAL LOCATE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant v. SiRF TECHNOLOGY INC. Requester 95001377 6,417,801 09/715,860 COCKS 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. ENGLISH, PETER C original BLUM, THEODORE M

howard, dealertrack, cybersource

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Smith et al 10844690 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 MILLER & MARTIN EXAMINER AL-AWADI, DANAH J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2471 Ex Parte Quigley 11098612 - (D) ZECHER 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER CHOU, ALBERT T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Aizenberg et al 11172319 - (D) LEE 103 HITT GAINES, PC ALCATEL-LUCENT  EXAMINER MILLER, BENA B

3727 Ex Parte Yonezawa et al 10565503 - (D) BAHR 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

3734 Ex Parte Matsuno et al 10072721 - (D) GREEN 103 Scully, Scott, Murphy & Presser EXAMINER MENDOZA, MICHAEL G

Relying on Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893), the Examiner concludes:

It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the coupling member immovable in an axial direction of the actuating wire and a direction deviating from the axial direction by making the coupling member and actuating wire once piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involved only routine skill in the art. ...

The Examiner’s position is that Howard v. Detroit Stove Works holds that forming a one piece article from two pieces is a matter of routine skill. The Examiner, however, appears to draw from this case turning on specific facts, a general obviousness rule: namely, that forming several pieces integrally as a single-piece is not considered to be patentable subject matter. No such per se rule exists.

3739 Ex Parte Hanlon et al 11676340 - (D) ADAMS 103 Evans & Dixon, LLC EXAMINER DELLA, JAYMI E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Kouchi et al 10525749 - (D) SCHEINER 103 103 Sheridan Ross, PC EXAMINER HARWARD, SOREN T

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Eiermann et al 11043715 - (D) PRAISS 112(2) 112(1)/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Cheah et al 10955514 - (D) HAHN 102/103 102/103 Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER ZUBAJLO, JENNIFER L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Kirschner et al 10908350 - (D) WOOD 102 102/103 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER ALEXANDER, REGINALD

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Fuchs et al 10593791 - (D) GARRIS 103 DILWORTH IP, LLC EXAMINER KRYLOVA, IRINA

1774 Ex Parte Miura et al 11199366 - (D) SMITH 102/103 SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER YOUNG, NATASHA E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Fredrickson et al 11238550 - (D) THOMAS 101/102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP EXAMINER STACE, BRENT S

As for claims 7-12, a computer-implemented method is recited. However, simply using some computer-implemented method in some undefined manner alone cannot confer patentability. More recently, claims were held to be non-statutory where the claims recite only that the method is “computer aided” without specifying any level of involvement or detail. In considering patent eligibility under § 101, one must focus on the claims. This is because a claim may “preempt” only that which the claims encompass, not what is disclosed but left unclaimed. Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Simply adding [computerized sending and receiving steps] to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.” Id. at 1340.

As to the “computer-implemented method,” we further note that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from the database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such datagathering steps cannot alone confer patentability. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The “computer-implemented” modifier is comparable in scope to “computer-aided” and so its inclusion in the preamble does not change the outcome. Here, we find that the computer-implemented system is software (a software system), and is therefore non-statutory subject matter.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Puettner et al 10589058 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102 KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER IMAS, VLADIMIR

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Kleen et al 11473412 - (D) GRIMES 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER MEHTA, PARIKHA SOLANKI
 
REHEARING
 
GRANTED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Dierkes et al 11043379 - (R) OBERMANN NIKOLAI & MERSEREAU, P.A. EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

cordis, hoffer, minton, cybersource, dealertrack

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2199 Ex Parte Dent 11/143,157 GONSALVES 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER BULLOCK JR, LEWIS ALEXANDER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Edgar 11/298,336 HOELTER 102/103 Elizabeth A. Edgar EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3657 Ex Parte Adoline et al 10/820,280 STAICOVICI 103 FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3687 Ex Parte East 11/177,182 FETTING 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Tarantino 10/810,782 LORIN 103 WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K

3721 Ex Parte Seyffert 11/051,274 CALVE 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

3761 Ex Parte Meir 10/601,455 BONILLA 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Kiehlbauch et al 11/812,902 DELMENDO 103 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER CHANDRA, SATISH

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Alberth et al 10/206,706 DILLON 103 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER BOCURE, TESFALDET

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Uhlir-Tsang et al 11/553,932 OWENS obviousness-type double patenting/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FAISON, VERONICA F

1734 Ex Parte Higgins 12/167,139 METZ 103 DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP EXAMINER LE, EMILY M

1764 Ex Parte Ganapathiappan et al 11/700,633 GAUDETTE 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P

1767 Ex Parte TAKAGI et al 12/391,725 FRANKLIN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

1771 Ex Parte Bhan et al 11/014,362 SCHAFER 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Sahita et al 11/170,925 DROESCH 101/102 Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC/Intel Corporation RIAD, AMINE

Claim construction is an issue of law subject to review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

2183 Ex Parte Lippincott 10/850,095 DILLON 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E

The determination of whether an intended use clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. In re Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Jain et al 10/291,169 KIM 101/103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC EXAMINER STERRETT, JONATHAN G

See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[i]t is clear that unpatentable mental processes are the subject matter of claim 3. All of claim 3’s method steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”). Simply adding computer limitations to such mental processes, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

3625 Ex Parte Leon et al 11/241,883 KIM 102 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER SMITH, JEFFREY A

3627 Ex Parte Stenz et al 10/873,000 FETTING non-obvious double patenting 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

3634 Ex Parte Woller 10/426,550 HORNER 102 GARDNER GROFF GREENWALD & VILLANUEVA. PC CHIN EXAMINER SHUE, ALVIN C

3682 Ex Parte Boyle 11/215,907 KIM 103 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER HAMILTON, MATTHEW L

3685 Ex Parte Stefik et al 11/174,654 FETTING 103 Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER NIGH, JAMES D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Boukhny 11/060,827 FRANKLIN 103 ALCON EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3743 Ex Parte Yabuuchi et al 10/879,136 BAHR 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER LU, JIPING

3767 Ex Parte Dalton 11/252,329 FITZPATRICK 103 Cardinal Law Group EXAMINER OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Simmons et al 10/159,718 DANG 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG

researchcorp, cybersource

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 
2163 Ex Parte Satagopan et al 10/693,516 GIANNETTI 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT) EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D

2184 Ex Parte Paulson et al 11/147,855 STRAUSS 103(a) COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC LSI CORPORATION EXAMINER TSENG, CHENG YUAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2471 Ex Parte Demaria et al 10/109,643 DANG 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER WONG, WARNER

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Kelly 11/079,323 KRIVAK 112(2)/102(a)/103(a) MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. EXAMINER MAI, ANH D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Daniels et al 10/985,314 FRAHM 112(1)/103(a) 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAILU, TESHOME

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Ford et al 10/736,854 ZECHER 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER CLEARY, THOMAS J

2127 Ex Parte Sato et al 11/437,233 McNAMARA 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER NORTON, JENNIFER L

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2483 Ex Parte Amielh-Caprioglio et al 10/324,814 DANG 102(e) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER VO, TUNG T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Beaman et al 11/553,498 DIXON 103(a) IBM Corporation EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRUC T

2887 Ex Parte THORSEN et al 11/470,880 JEFFERSON 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER MARSHALL, CHRISTLE I

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Skyba et al 10/984,320 BONILLA 101/obviousness-type double patenting 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L

The Federal Circuit has since stated that “inventions with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace are not likely to be so abstract that they override the statutory language and framework of the Patent Act.” Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

In CyberSource, the court noted that the method recited in Research Corp. “required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure (a halftoned digital image).” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The method in that case “could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human‟s mind.” Id. By contrast, in CyberSource, “one could mentally perform the fraud detection method” recited in the claims and therefore the claims in that case attempted to “capture unpatentable mental processes (i.e., abstract ideas).” Id. at 1376-77.

3762 Ex Parte Torgerson et al 11/184,718 FREDMAN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER DIETRICH, JOSEPH M

ultramercial, researchcorp, farrenkopf, cybersource, dealertrack

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte GOLDENBERG et al 11/745,692 GRIMES 103(a) IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. EXAMINER KINSEY WHITE. NICOLE ERIN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3658 Ex Parte Thoma 10/647,912 HOELTER 102(b) O'Shea Getz P.C. EXAMINER BOES, TERENCE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Brissette 11/090,861 SAINDON 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER EKIERT, TERESA M

3748 Ex Parte Goulette et al 11/453,352 SAINDON 102(b) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q

3761 Ex Parte Pfeifer et al 10/231,151 BONILLA 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Sparr et al 10/122,762 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) MOSER TABOADA EXAMINER MATTIS, JASON E

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Svendsen 11/403,597 KIM 101/103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA CT EXAMINER UBER, NATHAN C

However, the Federal Circuit has held that Section 101 is “merely a threshold check” and “no more than a ‘coarse eligibility filter’” that “are certainly not substitutes for the substantive patentability requirements set forth in § 102, § 103, and § 112.” See Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2011), (citing Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Webb 11/485,413 KIM 101/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DENNIS, MICHAEL DAVID

3783 Ex Parte Moskun 11/434,429 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER COLEMAN, KEITH A

While Springer criticizes the use of a wireless radio connection for remote monitoring as complex and costly (id.), the cost of a particular modification in and of itself is not typically presumed sufficient to discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from adopting the modification. See In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Farrenkopf, In re, 713 F.2d 714, 219 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11/260,678 NAGUMO 103(a) Rahman LLC EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Edelson 11/101,436 FETTING 112(2)/101/103(a) PATTON BOGGS LLP EXAMINER SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY

As to the “computer-implemented method,”

even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from the database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011). Simply using some computer-implemented method in some undefined manner alone cannot confer patentability. More recently, claims were held to be non-statutory where

the claims here recite only that the method is “computer aided” without specifying any level of involvement or detail. The fact that certain algorithms are disclosed in the specification does not change the outcome. In considering patent eligibility under § 101, one must focus on the claims. This is because a claim may “preempt” only that which the claims encompass, not what is disclosed but left unclaimed.

Dealertrack v Huber --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 164439 (Fed Cir 2012). The phrase “computer-implemented” modifier is comparable in scope to “computer-aided” and so its inclusion in the preamble does not change the outcome.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Godley 09/778,543 FETTING 102(b)/103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

3729 Ex Parte Yao et al 10/997,183 ASTORINO 102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KIM, PAUL D

3761 Ex Parte Schneider 10/995,863 PRATS 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F