PPG, de lajarte

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Lee et al 12240396 - (D) WILSON 103 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP LEE, REBECCA Y

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2486 Ex Parte Wu et al 13996280 - (D) CUTITTA 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson DEMOSKY, PATRICK E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Shirakawa et al 12076599 - (D) DEJMEK 102 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. PIZIALI, JEFFREY J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte SAJIMA 13906493 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP SIMMS JR, JOHN ELLIOTT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Bruck et al 14045818 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION PAIK, SANG YEOP

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Green 14165076 - (D) NEWMAN 103 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. PURDY, KYLE A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Cator et al 13636254 - (D) PRAISS 102/103 CAHN & SAMUELS LLP LEFF, STEVEN N

 The claim term “consisting essentially of’ is used to indicate, for example, that “the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appellant bears the burden of: (1) showing the basic and novel characteristics of their claimed invention, and (2) establishing how those characteristics would be materially changed by any allegedly excluded component of an applied reference. See In re DeLajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873 74 (CCPA 1964). 

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2111.03 , 2163

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964) 2111.03 , 2163

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Bogdany et al 13425509 - (D) BUSCH 103 Keohane & D'Alessandro ALGIBHAH, HAMZA N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte KITAJIMA 14100103 - (D) SHIANG 103 MURATA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP CHEN, ZHITONG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3668 Ex Parte ELIE et al 14693597 - (D) ASTORINO 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL TROOST, AARON L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Masse et al 13151155 - (D) CALVE 103 Joel G. Landau Aerojet Rocketdyne GOYAL, ARUN

3742 Ex Parte Morrow et al 14026492 - (D) OSINSKI 102/103 KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC LAFLAME JR, MICHAEL A

3778 Ex Parte Schonbeck et al 14265714 - (D) WOOD 103/OTDP THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY VASAT, PETER S

de lajarte, hoffman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Stone et al 11445091 - (D) WALSH 102/103 USDA, ARS, OTT CHEN, STACY BROWN

If an Applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” Applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of Applicant‟s invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 874 (CCPA 1964) (reversing Board because Appellant met burden (composition claim)). See also, Ex parte Hoffman, 1989 WL 274371 *3, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1061, 1063-64 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (“[I]t is an applicant‟s burden to establish that step practiced in a prior art method is excluded from [the] claims by „consisting essentially of‟ language.”).

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964) 2111.03, 2163

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Nelson et al 11198447 - (D) KIMLIN 103 BEMIS COMPANY, INC. ORTIZ, ANGELA Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Nall et al 11289672 - (D) McNAMARA 103 FAY SHARPE LLP/GE LIGHTING SOLUTIONS, LLC HAN, JASON

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Kataoka et al 10703596 - (D) KIMLIN 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 POSZ LAW GROUP, PLC MANCHO, RONNIE M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Gerber et al 11380458 - (D) GRIMES 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) LAVERT, NICOLE F

3767 Ex Parte Olsen et al 11413820 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA BOSWORTH, KAMI A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte SAWHNEY et al 11465791 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 103 DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC BECKHARDT, LYNDSEY MARIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Angov et al 11907584 - (D) WALSH 112(1)/102/103 VENABLE LLP VOGEL, NANCY TREPTOW

1636 Ex Parte Winter et al 10290233 - (D) MILLS 112(1) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC KETTER, JAMES S

1641 Ex Parte Wong et al 10888029 - (D) ADAMS 103 THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. NGUYEN, BAO THUY L

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Krasnov et al 11808765 - (D) KIMLIN 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC VETERE, ROBERT A

1742 Ex Parte McLeod 11217007 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC JOHNSON, CHRISTINA ANN

1747 Ex Parte Westgate et al 11931973 - (D) KIMLIN 103 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1791 Ex Parte Shefler 10530202 - (D) KIMLIN 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON STULII, VERA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Bermender et al 11095699 - (D) COURTENAY 102/obviousness-type double patenting Greg Goshorn, P.C. NGUYEN, CAM LINH T

2172 Ex Parte Haynes et al 11032822 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP TAN, ALVIN H

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2678 Ex Parte Kok et al 11267893 - (D) SAADAT 103/251 Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt BRIER, JEFFERY A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Moore 11514276 - (D) Per Curiam 112(1)/103 Prass LLP PHAM, ANDY L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Paltieli 11621625 - (D) GREEN 101/103 DEKEL PATENT LTD., DAVID KLEIN STOUT, MICHAEL C

3767 Ex Parte Stecker et al 10968490 - (D) BONILLA 103 Casimir Jones, S.C. THOMAS, JR, BRADLEY G  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Rajagopalan et al 10828023 - (R) GARRIS 103 Applied Materials BURKHART, ELIZABETH A

herz, PPG, de lajarte, hoffman, finisar

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/12/2011 2854 Ex Parte Petermann 10/733,484 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER FERGUSON SAMRETH, MARISSA LIANA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/12/2011 3657 Ex Parte Davison et al 11/166,388 HORNER 103(a) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/12/2011 3767 Ex Parte Dolliver et al 10/787,849 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) HAEMONETICS CORPORATION EXAMINER WITCZAK, CATHERINE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/12/2011 1617 Ex Parte Martin 11/914,485 GREEN 103(a) FMC CORPORATION EXAMINER BUCKLEY, AUDREA

The “phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ limits the scope of a claim to the specified ingredients and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of a composition.” In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52 (CCPA 1976) (emphasis added); see also PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir 1998). Appellant bears the burden of establishing that the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention would be materially affected by, or at least reasonably expected to be materially affected by, any component or step of an applied reference that is argued to be excluded by a “consisting essentially of” transitional phrase used in the claims. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74 (CCPA 1964); Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (BPAI 1989).

Herz, In re, 537 F.2d 549, 190 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . .2111.03, 2163

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Hoffman, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1061 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/13/2011 3993 Ex parte BioCybernetics International, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,605 6,213,968 LANE 103(a) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

Cf. Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 2011 WL 2307402 at *5 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2011) (holding, based on expert testimony, that prior apparatuses taught away from the claimed apparatus because they improved a certain parameter in a different way).
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/13/2011 1761 Ex Parte Brooker et al 11/329,008 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DOUYON, LORNA M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/13/2011 2123 Ex Parte Freeman et al 11/235,344 ZECHER 101/102(b) Mr. Christopher John Rourk Jackson Walker LLP EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R

See Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Group, Inc. 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“For computer-implemented means-plus-function claims where the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to implement an algorithm, "the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm") (citations and quotation marks omitted.). As such, the application must disclose “enough of an algorithm to provide the necessary structure under § 112, ¶ 6” or a disclosure that can be expressed in any understandable terms (e.g., a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flowchart). Id. But “[s]imply reciting "software" without providing some detail about the means to accomplish the function is not enough.” Id. at 1341-42 (citation omitted).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/13/2011 3743 Ex Parte Yang et al 10/451,340 O’NEILL 103(a) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP EXAMINER LU, JIPING
REHEARING

GRANTED - REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/13/2011 1645 Ex Parte Degelaen et al 10/170,343 GREEN 103(a) Butzel Long EXAMINER ZEMAN, ROBERT A

Jung, hyatt, frye, PPG, herz, de lajarte, hoffman, schreiber, ludtke, hallman

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/702,607 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chalupsky et al 10/656,652 DANG 102(e)/103(a) Caven & Aghevli LLC c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WHIPPLE, BRIAN P
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brady et al 10/217,795 KRIVAK 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - JW EXAMINER TRAN, QUOC DUC
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2163 Ex parte NETAPP, INC. 90/009,129 7,174,352 EASTHOM 112(2)/305/102(b) PATENT OWNER CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER RONALD L. YIN DLA PIPER US LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER LE, UYEN T

By failing to "articulate what gaps, in fact exist" between Gait and these claims, Appellant fails to show error, when as here, the Examiner put Appellant on notice as to how the claims were being treated. See In re Jung, No. 2011-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 * 4, 5 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2011). In Jung, the appellant at least alleged a gap existed, "but chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this difference." Id. at * 7. The failure to allege such a gap exists constitutes an effective waiver. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.")

Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . 2163.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Bamba et al 10/182,908 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER VERA AFREMOVA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Guthrie 10/816,403 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) M. P. Williams EXAMINER

WALKER, KEITH D

1761 Ex Parte Yang et al 10/951,849 KRATZ 103(a) ARKEMA INC. EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A

Concerning the first issue and the claim term “consisting essentially of”, it is well settled that the term “consisting essentially of” is interpreted as allowing for the inclusion not only of those ingredients specifically recited, but also those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of a claimed invention. PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52 (CCPA 1976). However, the burden is on Appellants to show what the basic and novel characteristics are and how they would be materially changed by the ingredient of the reference sought to be excluded from inclusion by Appellants’ use of this term. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74 (CCPA 1964); Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (BPAI 1989).

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . .2111.03, 2163

Herz, In re, 537 F.2d 549, 190 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Hoffman, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1061 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03
1767 Ex Parte Haider et al 11/315,639 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

1789 Ex Parte De Haan et al 10/380,883 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

Choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk: Where there is reason to conclude that the structure of the prior art is inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

Ludtke, In re, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112.01
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Zilavy 10/984,478 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J