datamize

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1675 Ex Parte Doney 11496030 - (D) FREDMAN 103 International Specialty Products ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Buerger et al 12389858 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1)/112(2)/103 Hemingway & Hansen, LLP FLYNN, KEVIN H

See Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Datamize has offered no objective definition identifying a standard for determining when an interface screen is ‘aesthetically pleasing.’ . . . . While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a claim term, to be definite, requires an objective anchor.”).

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)

3687 Ex Parte Johnsmeyer et al 12351575 - (D) FETTING 103 Hovey Williams LLP DANZIG, REVA R

3695 Ex Parte Gorelik et al 12825505 - (D) FETTING 112(4)/103 Victor Gorelik ROBINSON, KITO R

halliburton, datamize, miyazaki

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Doumaux et al 12808046 - (D) KAISER dissenting HOUSEL 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, VU ANH

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Keohane et al 11867735 - (D) HAAPALA 103 LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) HO, RUAY L

2176 Ex Parte Dejean et al 11923904 - (D) SHIANG 103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER BURKE, TIONNA M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Salvi et al 12501412 - (D) SILVERMAN 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY POLLACK, MELVIN H

2452 Ex Parte McClain et al 12612895 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (26530) HUSSAIN, TAUQIR

2457 Ex Parte Brakensiek 12495119 - (D) CURCURI concurring BAUMEISTER 102/103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation KIM, HEE SOO

Rather, "dynamic data" and "static data" are merely undefined terms of degree. When a term of degree is used in a claim, the specification must provide some standard for measuring the requisite degree.  Datamise, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc. 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). "[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite." Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).

Our reviewing court explained the rationale for requiring such definiteness for terms of degree in Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-1 LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In Halliburton, the court was asked to determine whether the relative claim term "fragile gel" was sufficiently definite.  Id. at 1246.  In spite of that Patent's Specification containing an express definition for the term "fragile gel" (id. (citing Kirsner et al., U.S. No. 6,887,832 B2; issued May 3, 2005, at col. 2, II. 26-42)), the Halliburton court nonetheless found that no "possible construction resolves the ambiguity in the scope of the term." Id. at 1250.

The fact that Halliburton can articulate a definition supported by the specification, however, does not end the inquiry.  Even if a claim term's definition can be reduced to words, the claim is still indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot translate the definition into meaningful precise claim scope."

Id. at 1251.

The Hallibrton court explained the public policy underlying its conclusion:

35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 requires that the specification of a patent "conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention." Because claims delineate the patentee's right to exclude, the patent statute requires that the scope of the claims be sufficiently definite to inform the public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what subject matter is covered by the exclusive rights of the patent. Otherwise, competitors cannot avoid infringement, defeating the public notice function of patent claims. Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1996) ("[T]he primary purpose of the requirement is `to guard against unreasonable advantages to the patentee and disadvantages to others arising from uncertainty as to their [respective] rights.'") (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Carp., 304 U.S. 364, 369, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402, (1938)). The Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he statutory requirement of particularity and distinctness in, claims is met only when [the claims] clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise." United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236, 63 S.Ct. 165, 87 L.Ed. 232 (1942).

Id. at 1249 (citations omitted).

The Halliburton court also noted an additional policy consideration, which serves as the basis for why the Board should not ignore the claims' clarity in spite of the issue not being raised on appeal:

the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.

Id. at 1255.

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)

Miyazaki, Ex parte, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (BPAI 2008) 2173.05(b)


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Neuhauser et al 11777051 - (D) SCHOPFER 102 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen) JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Scantlebury et al 10503549 - (D) WARREN 103 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP WOOD, ELLEN SUZANNE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Yoshida et al 12631295 - (D) BAER 103 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT DRAVININKAS, ADAM B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Golombek et al 12128795 - (D) ADAMS 103 41.50 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON SOROUSH, LAYLA

1631 Ex Parte Rambaud 10687636 - (D) POLLOCK 112(1)/112(2)/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON WHALEY, PABLO S

1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12459493 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12459623 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Uensal et al 12375550 - (D) WARREN 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) NGUYEN, COLETTE B

1747 Ex Parte Dale et al 12450964 - (D) GARRIS 112(a)/112(b)/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ROGERS, MARTIN K

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte van Putten 13354196 - (D) NEW 102/103 MAURICE H.P.M. VAN PUTTEN ELLIS, MATTHEW J

2175 Ex Parte Gn et al 12345050 - (D) HOMERE 102 LSI CORPORATION TRAN, MYLINH T

2175 Ex Parte Jude et al 12486914 - (D) NEW 102/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 NABI, REZA U

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Marilly et al 11960691 - (D) KAISER 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT LIN, JASON K

2431 Ex Parte STAUNER et al 11961947 - (D) MCMILLIN 112(2) 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP VAUGHAN, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Rosenberg 11927060 - (D) SHIANG 103 Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, LLP BOLOTIN, DMITRIY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Craven et al 10582390 - (D) TIMM 103 GATES & COOPER LLP (General) FOX, BRANDON C

2854 Ex Parte Wilson et al 12110518 - (D) ABRAHAM 102/103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER MARINI, MATTHEW G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Lowles 12394750 - (D) STEPINA 103 41.50 103 RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3671 Ex Parte Goering et al 12715237 - (D) BROWNE 103 DEERE & COMPANY NGUYEN, MAI T

3672 Ex Parte Selb et al 12800975 - (D) MURPHY 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB LAGMAN, FREDERICK LYNDON

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Vontell 11702715 - (D) BROWNE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY DECKER, PHILLIP

3788 Ex Parte Felsch et al 12267191 - (D) SMEGAL 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials POON, ROBERT

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
2782 HTC CORPORATION Requester v. FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGY, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 6163816 et al 08/920,424 95001420 - (D) COCKS 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Herskovitz & Associates, PLLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: PEKINS COIE LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original SHIN, CHRISTOPHER B

datamize, nautilus, interval

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Gargaro et al 12245971 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) SCHWARTZ, DARREN B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Chan et al 11614179 - (D) WIEDER 102 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG MISIASZEK, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Warkentin et al 11343175 - (D) ADAMS 112(2)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BEHRINGER, LUTHER G

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Horn et al 12692332 - (D) MacDONALD 102 102 VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy IBM CORPORATION SCHELL, JOSEPH O

2184 Ex Parte TRIECE et al 11928132 - (D) NAPPI 103 103 King & Spalding LLP SUN, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Ohno et al 11447138 - (D) MCKONE 103 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP NGUYEN, THAI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Ma et al 12653722 - (D) PAK 103 obviousness-type double patenting Winkle, PLLC CHEN, XIAOLIANG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Sharma et al 12304007 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Wellstat Management Company. LLC WEST, THEODORE R

1674 Ex Parte Kay et al 10259226 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing ANGELL, JON E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Butts et al 11704809 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CORNING INCORPORATED LAZORCIK, JASON L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Cheng et al 12017016 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG BHATIA, AJAY M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Arsenault et al 11731977 - (D) FISHMAN 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. EKPO, NNENNA NGOZI

2452 Ex Parte Chevanne et al 10673458 - (D) SMITH 103 Wolff & Samson (ALU) HUSSAIN, TAUQIR

2456 Ex Parte Hoggan 12205706 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP/SFO SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI

2485 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos 11494929 - (D) STRAUSS 101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TORRENTE, RICHARD T

2495 Ex Parte Jaquette et al 11470804 - (D) DILLON 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP IBM Tucson LEWIS, LISA C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Bosch et al 11938957 - (D) EVANS 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent MAPA, MICHAEL Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Smith et al 13176436 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. LE, MARK T

3653 Ex Parte Brewer et al 12468973 - (D) HOELTER 103 Prass LLP MORRISON, THOMAS A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Knight 10/722,473 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 101 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 Andrew Knight COBURN, CORBETT B

In our view, Applicant's Specification expands upon how the "indicating" steps of the claim may be performed to such an extent where there is "no objective definition identifying a standard for determing when" a method of relaying a story actually "indicat[es]" a certain fact (e.g., "a character's desire ... to remain asleep ... until a particular event occurs" as recited in claim 1).  See Datamize, LC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated by, Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014)4; Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 2014 WL 4435871, at *5 Fed. Cir. Sept. 10. 2014) ("Although absolute or mathematical precision is not required, it is not enough ... to identify some standard for measuring the scope of the phrase .... [Rather, t]he claims, when read in light of the specification and prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.") (citations and quotations omitted).  We find the discussion in Datamize analogous to the circumstances here.5

4 While the Supreme Court in Nautilus disagreed with the standard for determining indefiniteness as applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Datamize the Court did not suggest any disagreement with the holding in Datamize that a completely subjective construction of a term renders the term indefinite.  See generally Nautilus, 134 S.Ct. 2120.  Although in the context of litigation based on an isued patent, the standard enunciated in Nautilus for determining definiteness - whether a patent's claims "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty" (id. at 2029) - is arguably less of a hurdle to establishing indefiniteness than the "insoluably ambiguous" standard applied in Datamize. Thus, we have no reason to suspect that, had the analysis in Datamize been performed under the "reasonable certainty" standard, the Federal Circuit would have reached a different conclusion.

5 In addition to our discussion herein, we recognize that, in Datamize, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court construction that the ordinary meaning of "aesthetically pleasing" "includes 'having beauty that gives pleasure or enjoyment' or, in other words, 'beautiful[,]'" but concluded the phrase was indefinite. 417 F.3d at 1348


3762 Ex Parte Cazares et al 12686122 - (D) ADAMS 103 BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC FLORY, CHRISTOPHER A

3777 Ex Parte Bruce et al 11816424 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(2)/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LUONG, PETER

keller, datamize, musgrave, Nystrom, Phillips, sunrace

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Baluja et al 11173702 - (D) FRAHM 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. HOFFLER, RAHEEM

2182 Ex Parte Brenner et al 11751277 - (D) CHEN 103 IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C. TALUKDAR, ARVIND

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Hamalainen 10546641 - (D) MORGAN 103 FASTH LAW OFFICES (ROLF FASTH) SU, SARAH

2443 Ex Parte Arimilli et al 12342691 - (D) SHIANG 102 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. BELANI, KISHIN G

2492 Ex Parte Rasanen 11156479 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 Mintz Levin/San Diego Office MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Gunderson et al 11096851 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Mohrmann, III 11465637 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP CHOUDHURY, ZAHID

See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference[.]”).

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) 707.07(f) , 2145

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Reignoux et al 11629893 - (D) OWENS 103 103 OSHA LIANG L.L.P. STANFORD, CHRISTOPHER J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte PELTON 11860115 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Cisco c/o Leon R Turkevich Manelli Selter PLLC KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

Specifically, the scope of the claimed “prescribed presentation preference” is not defined and thus, appears to depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. See Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. See Application of Musgrave, 57 C.C.P.A. 1352, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (1970) (noting ‘[a] step requiring the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction might be objectionable as rendering a claim indefinite’). Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.” (emphasis added)).

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)
...

“When different words or phrases are used in separate claims, a difference in meaning is presumed.” Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.” Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This presumption is “especially strong when the limitation in dispute is the only meaningful difference between an independent and dependent claim, and one party is urging that the limitation in the dependent claim should be read into the independent claim.” SunRace Roots Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

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

Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2111.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Pauly et al 11317464 - (D) FINK 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. SANDERS, STEPHEN

2457 Ex Parte Leermakers 10993391 - (D) SHAW 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SALL, EL HADJI MALICK

2463 Ex Parte St. Laurent et al 11854417 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. KHIRODHAR, MAHARISHI V

2491 Ex Parte SAWICKI et al 12143134 - (D) WORMMEESTER 103 Stevens Law Group BECHTEL, KEVIN M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Baardse et al 12052610 - (D) BOUDREAU 102 Siemens Corporation GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA

2644 Ex Parte Naim et al 11274015 - (D) COURTENAY 103 SPRINT HEIBER, SHANTELL LAKETA

clay, antor media, datamize, seattle box

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Dao et al 11347404 - (D) BUI 102 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC TRAN, BAO G

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Erceg et al 12264472 - (D) COURTENAY 103 GARLICK & MARKISON BAIG, ADNAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Cruz-Hernandez et al 10926644 - (D) STRAUSS 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP ZHOU, HONG

To be considered in an obviousness analysis the art must be analogous “prior art” which means the prior art must be in either the same field of Appellants’ endeavor or reasonably pertinent to Appellants’ problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Whether a prior art reference is “analogous” is a question of fact. Id. at 658. The Examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Parmater’s exercise device providing adjustable head resistance as being in the same field of endeavor as Appellants’ apparatus.

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08
DONNER 8: 262, 267, 275, 283
HARMON 4: 162; 20: 163

2659 Ex Parte Wu 11558145 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Kouvetakis et al 11969689 - (D) GARRIS 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP GUPTA, RAJ R

The Examiner is correct that the prior art printed publications Roucka and Jorgenson are presumptively enabling. In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, when an applicant challenges enablement of a reference, applicant's evidence and argument must be thoroughly reviewed to determine if the reference is enabling. Id., 689 F.3d at 1292.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Schwan 10518369 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. PAINTER, BRANON C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Ingram et al 11860994 - (D) ABRAMS 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) EDWARD S. WRIGHT LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

The term “enhanced” is a word of degree, and “when a word of degree is used [a court] must determine
whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). ... Thus, an unrestrained, subjective construction of “strands having enhanced gripping properties” “would not notify the public of the
patentee’s right to exclude since the meaning of the claim language would depend on the unpredictable vagaries of any one person’s opinion . . . . While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a claim term, to be definite, requires an objective anchor.” Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1350.

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)
Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2173.05(b)
DONNER 10: 290, 292, 566; 14: 31, 53, 54, 442
HARMON 5: 272, 274; 13: 235; 18: 289, 307, 314

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Schmidl et al 11360654 - (D) SHIANG 103 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED HSIUNG, HAI-CHANG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Huck 11717701 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC TSVEY, GENNADIY

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Wan et al 10906513 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC CHOI, YUK TING

2193 Ex Parte Harvey et al 11674893 - (D) KUMAR 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller, PLLC VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte CHOI et al 12133946 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC LEWIS, JONATHAN V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Amizic et al 12427387 - (D) FISHMAN 102/obviousness-type double patenting Zenith Electronics LLC PUENTE, EVA YI ZHENG

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Daneshvar 11731945 - (R) ADAMS 103 Yousef Daneshvar, MD FACC. SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 SOLVAY S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1660 6,730,817 09/051,746 DYK dissenting NEWMAN 102(g)(2) Williams & Connolly LLP; Kirkland & Ellis LLP original NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP PRICE, ELVIS O

kao, datamize, fisher, ricoh

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Asrar et al 11028782 - (D) GRIMES 103 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP HOLT, ANDRIAE M

See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If an applicant demonstrates that an embodiment has an unexpected result and provides an adequate basis to support the conclusion that other embodiments falling within the claim will behave in the same manner, this will generally establish that the evidence is commensurate with [the] scope of the claims.”).

1657 Ex Parte Edens et al 10572811 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC SINGH, SATYENDRA K

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte Chin et al 12322567 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 The Dow Chemical Company ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY IQBAL, SYED TAHA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Muller 11318805 - (D) HOFF 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP DISTEFANO, GREGORY A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11762868 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 Merchant & Gould - Cox HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2686 Ex Parte Korkowski et al 10758330 - (D) HOFF 103 Kagan Binder, PLLC / STL BLOUIN, MARK S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Carroll 11109781 - (D) KAUFFMAN 102/103 Stephen F. McDonald SAFAVI, MICHAEL

3646 Ex Parte Balzer et al 10545360 - (D) BROWN 103 MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A

3655 Ex Parte Noll 11557710 - (D) ASTORINO 102 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC LE, DAVID D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Jiang et al 10582908 - (D) SCANLON 112(1)/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS JENNISON, BRIAN W

3767 Ex Parte Van Antwerp 10616784 - (D) MARTIN 103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Minimed OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES

3788 Ex Parte Rolfes et al 11949602 - (D) HORNER 112(1)/103 (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) FLETCHER YODER NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Morris et al 10903155 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FENNEMA, ROBERT E

" 'A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.'" Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Pinyayev et al 11592674 - (D) WALSH 102/103 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

3734 Ex Parte Lindquist et al 11775324 - (D) BONILLA 103 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EVERAGE, KEVIN D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kelley 11754082 - (D) GRIMES 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. ORWIG, KEVIN S

1619 Ex Parte Ward 10595033 - (D) PRATS 101/112(1)/112(2) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. KASSA, TIGABU

See In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[As] to the "specific" utility requirement, an application must disclose a use which is not so vague as to be meaningless.”).

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) , 2103, 2107.01

1634 Ex Parte Wang et al 11256229 - (D) GREEN 103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global SALMON, KATHERINE D

1634 Ex Parte Pont-Kingdon et al 11268433 - (D) WALSH 103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/UTAH SALMON, KATHERINE D

1635 Ex Parte Robertson et al 11083583 - (D) PRATS 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C. SHIN, DANA H

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Naoi et al 11488044 - (D) HASTINGS 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. TADAYYON ESLAMI, TABASSOM

1724 Ex Parte OKAZAKI et al 12022472 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP THOMAS, BRENT C

1736 Ex Parte Meessen 11885666 - (D) PRAISS 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BERNS, DANIEL J

1761 Ex Parte Hsu et al 12006912 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY KOPEC, MARK T

1787 Ex Parte Finley 11512022 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(2)/102/103 Kagan Binder, PLLC ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A

1791 Ex Parte Baker et al 11669736 - (D) GARRIS 112(2)/103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP DEGUIRE, KATHERINE E

"The scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention." Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention." Id. "A purely subjective construction of 'aesthetically pleasing' would not notify the public of the patentee's right to exclude since the meaning of the claim language would depend on the unpredictable vagaries of any one person's opinion of the aesthetics of interface screens." Id. "While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a claim term, to be definite, requires an objective anchor." Id.

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Niki et al 11130242 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP PIERRE LOUIS, ANDRE

2183 Ex Parte Archer et al 11459387 - (D) GIANNETTI 112(2)/103 IBM (ROC-BLF) C/O BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP GIROUX, GEORGE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Howe et al 10335735 - (D) HUGHES 102 AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A

2432 Ex Parte Drehmel et al 10892430 - (D) FRAHM 103 IBM CORPORATION LANIER, BENJAMIN E

2439 Ex Parte Bhatt et al 10988913 - (D) MOORE 112(2)/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. LE, CANH

2463 Ex Parte Pushparaj 10767392 - (D) BUI 103 Marger Johnson & McCollom, P.C. - Cisco MARCELO, MELVIN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2653 Ex Parte Knott et al 10829557 - (D) McNAMARA 103 AT&T Legal Department - JW PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL

2659 Ex Parte Peck 10722038 - (D) FRAHM 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK PLLC C/O CPA Global SHAH, PARAS D

2664 Ex Parte Kollias et al 11497107 - (D) DANG 102/103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON YE, LIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Freedman 11381583 - (D) HOFF 103 Philip D. Freedman PC KUO, WENSING W

2872 Ex Parte Li 11274241 - (D) KRIVAK 102/103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB DOAK, JENNIFER L

2887 Ex Parte Kelley et al 10905716 - (D) KOHUT 103 (IBM) WHITHAM, CURTIS, CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. MAI, THIEN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Armaly 11827284 - (D) GROSSMAN 103 BUTZEL LONG WOOD, KIMBERLY T

3634 Ex Parte Berger 10822079 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 Sanchelima and Associates, P.A. JOHNSON, BLAIR M

3646 Ex Parte Schrauwen 11792764 - (D) WEATHERLY 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD

3689 Ex Parte Chen et al 11394871 - (D) KIM 112(1)/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP MATTIA, SCOTT A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Clements 10801401 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A