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
Showing posts with label dealertrack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dealertrack. Show all posts
Friday, December 6, 2013
Monday, April 8, 2013
dealertrack, cybersource
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
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
trans texas, dealertrack
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Shen et al 10621637 - (D) FITZPATRICK 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. OLSEN, KAJ K
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Krieg et al 10444817 - (D) HOFF 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D
2465 Ex Parte Chen et al 11701311 - (D) HOFF 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HSU, ALPUS
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Vandanapu et al 10741304 - (D) BUSCH 102/103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN JEANGLAUDE, JEAN BRUNER
2857 Ex Parte Kantzes et al 10435819 - (D) MOORE 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. LE, TOAN M
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Mahler et al 10588183 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Striker Striker & Stenby GALT, CASSI J
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Gobush 10898584 - (D) SCANLON 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL WONG, JEFFREY KEITH
3742 Ex Parte Benjamin et al 11001219 - (D) BAHR 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC PAIK, SANG YEOP
3777 Ex Parte Keglovich et al 11562753 - (D) GREEN 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP DON W. BULSON (BRAI) REMALY, MARK DONALD
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Shen et al 10621999 - (D) FITZPATRICK 251/103 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. OLSEN, KAJ K
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Forlenza et al 11034549 - (D) DIXON 102 102/103 IBM CORPORATION JOHNSON, JOHNESE T
2167 Ex Parte Zinda 10440281 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 JEANNE E. LONGMUIR WILSON, KIMBERLY LOVEL
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Matthews et al 11054638 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(1)/102/103 112(1)/112(2) Paul C. Matthews PARSLEY, DAVID J
3646 Ex Parte Wazybok et al 11940434 - (D) BROWNE 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. BURKE, SEAN P
3679 Ex Parte Hoggan 11214705 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 102/103 Thompson E. Fehr MACARTHUR, VICTOR L
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 Ex Parte Ish 10913132 - (D) HOELTER 103 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC GINSBERG, OREN ISAAC
3777 Ex Parte Sherman et al 11323537 - (D) GREEN 103 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN) REARDON, ROCHELLE D
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Zimmer et al 10498167 - (D) GREEN 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP KRASS, FREDERICK F
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Napolitano et al 10879696 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 ADDMG - 27975 WANG, EUGENIA
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Cox et al 11460461 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. HOCKER, JOHN P
2159 Ex Parte Bender 11508567 - (D) BENOIT 103 Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC CASANOVA, JORGE A
2161 Ex Parte Fink et al 10376982 - (D) HOFF 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP NGUYEN, CINDY
2175 Ex Parte Cook et al 10792662 - (D) PETTIGREW 103 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP DISTEFANO, GREGORY A
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Belimpasakis et al 10098848 - (D) HOFF 103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. NASH, LASHANYA RENEE
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2636 Ex Parte Schiaffino et al 10954091 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Maschoff Brennan CURS, NATHAN M
2641 Ex Parte Cole 11537509 - (D) SMITH 103 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C. COSME, NATASHA W
2677 Ex Parte AGUERA y ARCAS 11737001 - (D) DESHPANDE 102/103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. TUNG, KEE M
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Gallagher et al 12070514 - (D) MOORE 102/103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION CAROC, LHEIREN MAE ANGLO
In Trans Texas Holdings, the Federal Circuit provided a clear description of how to construe claims, noting:
In Phillips, we held that while “the specification [should be used] to interpret the meaning of a claim,” courts must not “import[ ] limitations from the specification into the claim.” Id. at 1323. We specifically noted that it is improper to “confin[e] the claims to th[e] embodiments” found in the specification, as Trans Texas asks us to do. Id.
In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The Federal Circuit noted that “[u]nder Phillips, dictionary definitions are also pertinent. See id. at 1318 (‘[T]he court has observed that dictionaries … can be useful in claim construction.’).” Id. at 1299. The Federal Circuit expressly commented that there were multiple dictionary definitions for the term “directly” but chose the “broadest” definition. See Trans Texas Holdings, 489 F.3d at 1299. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board decision in which the Board selected a dictionary definition that was broader than the examples disclosed in the Specification and was the broader dictionary definition. See Trans Texas Holdings, 489 F.3d at 1298-1299.
Trans Texas Holdings Corp., In re, 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2286, 2686.04
2877 Ex Parte Patel et al 11256377 - (D) HUME 103 Cislo & Thomas LLP BRYANT, REBECCA CAROLE
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Schinke et al 11596450 - (D) WOOD 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP PEDDER, DENNIS H
3677 Ex Parte Cox et al 10775746 - (D) ASTORINO 103 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP MILLER, WILLIAM L
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Webb 11011373 - (D) GREENHUT 103 112(2)/101/103 MORISHITA LAW FIRM, LLC LAYNO, BENJAMIN
Thus, the machine-or-transformation test remains a useful tool for determining whether a claim covers an abstract idea. See e.g., Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F. 3d 1315, 1331 et seq. (Fed. Cir. 2012).
3773 Ex Parte Carrison 10093264 - (D) O’HEARN 112(1)/103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP MASHACK, MARK F
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Williams 10679088 - (D) OSINSKI 103 W. Edward Johansen HALE, GLORIA M
Thursday, June 21, 2012
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
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
Thursday, June 14, 2012
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
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
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
howard, dealertrack
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Sadamitsu et al 10/985,880 KRATZ 103(a) CLARK & BRODY EXAMINER SONG, MATTHEW J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Richardson et al 10/507,862 KRIVAK 103(a) Joseph S. Tripoli Thomson Licensing Inc. EXAMINER VU, THONG H
2174 Ex Parte Mendel et al 11/177,100 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, GRANT D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Schedivy 10/645,048 COURTENAY 103(a) F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P
2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Park et al 10/893,325 JEFFERY 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER WILLIS, RANDAL L
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lindfors et al 11/658,542 GRIMES 103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER CLERKLEY, DANIELLE A
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Gazdic et al 10/119,663 KAUFFMAN 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER BUMGARNER, MELBA N
3721 Ex Parte Lang et al 10/189,798 CLARKE 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER DURAND, PAUL R
3737 Ex Parte Maschke et al 11/489,878 PRATS 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER KISH, JAMES M
3742 Ex Parte Kottilingam et al 11/036,991 McCARTHY 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER HEINRICH, SAMUEL M
3752 Ex Parte Burghaus et al 11/439,660 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CERNOCH, STEVEN MICHAEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Hedman 10/371,826 FRANKLIN 103(a) 103(a) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER CHORBAJI, MONZER R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Cross et al 10/323,272 DANG 102(e) 102(e) GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson EXAMINER RIAD, AMINE
2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Seeger et al 10/886,910 Per Curiam 102(e) 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER ROSARIO, DENNIS
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Heruth et al 10/873,764 SCHEINER 103(a) 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG
3771 Ex Parte Pidcock 11/274,361 ASTORINO 102(b) 102(b)/103(a) DESIGN IP, P.C. EXAMINER DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA
The Examiner also determines that “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the flexible massaging element of one piece.” Ans. 5 (citing to Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)).
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1725 Ex Parte 7049546 et al THE LINCOLN ELECTRIC COMPANY Requester and Appellant v. Patent of ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,205 PER CURIAM 112(2)/112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 112(2)/112(1) GEORGE R. CORRIGAN CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K original EXAMINER SHAW, CLIFFORD C
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte INGVOLDSTAD 12/566,038 BONILLA 103(a) GE HEALTHCARE, INC. EXAMINER KUMAR, SHAILENDRA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Liu et al 11/940,539 SMITH 103(a) HONEYWELL/UOP EXAMINER WOOD, ELIZABETH D
1762 Ex Parte Teschner 10/565,701 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER MULCAHY, PETER D
1767 Ex Parte Li 11/447,581 PER CURIAM 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F
1772 Ex Parte JUENKE et al 11/531,994 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) (Weatherford) Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford & Brucculeri LLP EXAMINER GONZALEZ, MADELINE
1775 Ex Parte Morton et al 11/351,024 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) INFINEUM USA L.P. EXAMINER HINES, LATOSHA D
1782 Ex Parte Shilling et al 10/931,534 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A
1787 Ex Parte Abe et al 12/226,042 McKELVEY 103(a)/112(2) Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione/Ann Arbor EXAMINER HUANG, CHENG YUAN
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Harvey et al 10/648,140 COURTENAY 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER LEWIS, ALICIA M
2179 Ex Parte Conally et al 10/400,051 PER CURIUM 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA
2181 Ex Parte Glenn et al 10/225,329 WEINBERG 102(e)/103(a) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Molaro et al 10/402,167 HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) Jonathan O. Owens HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP EXAMINER GEE, JASON KAI YIN
2439 Ex Parte Gimenez 10/367,657 THOMAS 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SIMITOSKI, MICHAEL J
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Hayem et al 10/733,861 HOMERE 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER CASCA, FRED A
2618 Ex Parte Biundo et al 10/392,562 BAUMEISTER 102(a)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LU, ZHIYU
2618 Ex Parte Luers 10/562,348 MORGAN 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU
2627 Ex Parte Duong 10/867,330 MORGAN 101/112(1)/112(2) Henri Duong EXAMINER LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY
Moreover, claim 7 is so manifestly abstract as to preempt the fundamental concept or idea of recording printing materials in recording materials, thus foreclosing innovation in this area. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 164439 at *16, No. 2009-1566, slip op. at *35 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Claim 7, being manifestly abstract, is therefore not patentable subject matter. See Dealertrack, ___ F.3d at ___, 2012 WL 164439 at *14, No. 2009-1566, slip op. at *30.
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Cabral et al 10/989,639 JEFFERY 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER PHAM, THANHHA S
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte MacLennan 11/534,131 KAUFFMAN 103(a) VENABLE, CAMPILLO, LOGAN & MEANEY, P.C. EXAMINER EPPS, TODD MICHAEL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Miller et al 10/935,389 PRATS 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. Richard A. Arrett EXAMINER SONNETT, KATHLEEN C
3735 Ex Parte Grace 11/436,258 FRANKLIN 103(a) RYAN KROMHOLZ & MANION, S.C. EXAMINER GILBERT, SAMUEL G
3737 Ex Parte Hsieh et al 10/243,057 MILLS 102(e)/103(a) GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC EXAMINER Lauritzen, Amanda
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Sadamitsu et al 10/985,880 KRATZ 103(a) CLARK & BRODY EXAMINER SONG, MATTHEW J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Richardson et al 10/507,862 KRIVAK 103(a) Joseph S. Tripoli Thomson Licensing Inc. EXAMINER VU, THONG H
2174 Ex Parte Mendel et al 11/177,100 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, GRANT D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Schedivy 10/645,048 COURTENAY 103(a) F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P
2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Park et al 10/893,325 JEFFERY 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER WILLIS, RANDAL L
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lindfors et al 11/658,542 GRIMES 103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER CLERKLEY, DANIELLE A
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Gazdic et al 10/119,663 KAUFFMAN 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER BUMGARNER, MELBA N
3721 Ex Parte Lang et al 10/189,798 CLARKE 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER DURAND, PAUL R
3737 Ex Parte Maschke et al 11/489,878 PRATS 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER KISH, JAMES M
3742 Ex Parte Kottilingam et al 11/036,991 McCARTHY 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER HEINRICH, SAMUEL M
3752 Ex Parte Burghaus et al 11/439,660 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CERNOCH, STEVEN MICHAEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Hedman 10/371,826 FRANKLIN 103(a) 103(a) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER CHORBAJI, MONZER R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Cross et al 10/323,272 DANG 102(e) 102(e) GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson EXAMINER RIAD, AMINE
2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Seeger et al 10/886,910 Per Curiam 102(e) 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER ROSARIO, DENNIS
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Heruth et al 10/873,764 SCHEINER 103(a) 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG
3771 Ex Parte Pidcock 11/274,361 ASTORINO 102(b) 102(b)/103(a) DESIGN IP, P.C. EXAMINER DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA
The Examiner also determines that “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the flexible massaging element of one piece.” Ans. 5 (citing to Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)).
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1725 Ex Parte 7049546 et al THE LINCOLN ELECTRIC COMPANY Requester and Appellant v. Patent of ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,205 PER CURIAM 112(2)/112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 112(2)/112(1) GEORGE R. CORRIGAN CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K original EXAMINER SHAW, CLIFFORD C
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte INGVOLDSTAD 12/566,038 BONILLA 103(a) GE HEALTHCARE, INC. EXAMINER KUMAR, SHAILENDRA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Liu et al 11/940,539 SMITH 103(a) HONEYWELL/UOP EXAMINER WOOD, ELIZABETH D
1762 Ex Parte Teschner 10/565,701 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER MULCAHY, PETER D
1767 Ex Parte Li 11/447,581 PER CURIAM 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F
1772 Ex Parte JUENKE et al 11/531,994 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) (Weatherford) Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford & Brucculeri LLP EXAMINER GONZALEZ, MADELINE
1775 Ex Parte Morton et al 11/351,024 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) INFINEUM USA L.P. EXAMINER HINES, LATOSHA D
1782 Ex Parte Shilling et al 10/931,534 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A
1787 Ex Parte Abe et al 12/226,042 McKELVEY 103(a)/112(2) Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione/Ann Arbor EXAMINER HUANG, CHENG YUAN
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Harvey et al 10/648,140 COURTENAY 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER LEWIS, ALICIA M
2179 Ex Parte Conally et al 10/400,051 PER CURIUM 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA
2181 Ex Parte Glenn et al 10/225,329 WEINBERG 102(e)/103(a) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Molaro et al 10/402,167 HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) Jonathan O. Owens HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP EXAMINER GEE, JASON KAI YIN
2439 Ex Parte Gimenez 10/367,657 THOMAS 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SIMITOSKI, MICHAEL J
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Hayem et al 10/733,861 HOMERE 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER CASCA, FRED A
2618 Ex Parte Biundo et al 10/392,562 BAUMEISTER 102(a)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LU, ZHIYU
2618 Ex Parte Luers 10/562,348 MORGAN 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU
2627 Ex Parte Duong 10/867,330 MORGAN 101/112(1)/112(2) Henri Duong EXAMINER LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY
Moreover, claim 7 is so manifestly abstract as to preempt the fundamental concept or idea of recording printing materials in recording materials, thus foreclosing innovation in this area. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 164439 at *16, No. 2009-1566, slip op. at *35 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Claim 7, being manifestly abstract, is therefore not patentable subject matter. See Dealertrack, ___ F.3d at ___, 2012 WL 164439 at *14, No. 2009-1566, slip op. at *30.
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Cabral et al 10/989,639 JEFFERY 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER PHAM, THANHHA S
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte MacLennan 11/534,131 KAUFFMAN 103(a) VENABLE, CAMPILLO, LOGAN & MEANEY, P.C. EXAMINER EPPS, TODD MICHAEL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Miller et al 10/935,389 PRATS 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. Richard A. Arrett EXAMINER SONNETT, KATHLEEN C
3735 Ex Parte Grace 11/436,258 FRANKLIN 103(a) RYAN KROMHOLZ & MANION, S.C. EXAMINER GILBERT, SAMUEL G
3737 Ex Parte Hsieh et al 10/243,057 MILLS 102(e)/103(a) GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC EXAMINER Lauritzen, Amanda
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)