donaldson, odetics, agrizap

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte YAMAUTI et al 13086693 - (D) OWENS 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. HA, STEVEN S

1764 Ex Parte Zhao et al 14132547 - (D) INGLESE 103 CYTEC INDUSTRIES INC. BROOKS, KREGGT

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Naito et al 12907351 - (D) McNEILL 103 Paratus Law Group, PLLC ESMAEILIAN, MAJID

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Stovall et al 13460001 - (D) KERINS 103 Hoffman Warniok T T .P MA, KUN KAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Ayers 12283629 - (D) PESLAK 103 103 CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS MCNURLEN, SCOTT THOMAS

 See also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“the broadest reasonable interpretation that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six.”).  Equivalence under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph requires “[f]unctional identity and either structural identity or equivalence.”  Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp., 185 F. 3d 1259, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01 , 2114 , 2161.01 , 2163.03

Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 51 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2183 , 2184

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1757 Ex Parte WEEKLEY 13216144 - (D) HANLON 102/103 112(1)/112(2) THE NOBLITT GROUP, PLLC BARTON, JEFFREY THOMAS

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2197 Ex Parte Ding et al 12815375 - (D) McNEILL 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG PAULINO, LENIN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte FONSEKA 13902036 - (D) REPKO 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC GARFT, CHRISTOPHER

 Additionally, courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch”).

3688 Ex Parte Robbins et al 10766517 - (D) MURPHY 101 OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP STIBLEY, MICHAEL R

bancorp, donaldson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Droz 13791181 - (D) BAIN 103 CAHN & SAMUELS LLP JUNGE, KRISTINA N S
3693 Ex Parte Burke 13479221 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 41.50 101 MARK TERRY, ESQ. FU, HAO

3693 Ex Parte Pradeep et al 12113870 - (D) LORIN 101/103 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen) KHATTAR, RAJESH

 see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273—74 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[I]t will ordinarily be desirable—and often necessary—to resolve claim construction disputes prior to a § 101 analysis, for the determination of patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter.”)

For example, claim 1 recites a system that comprises “a data collector,” “a cross-modality response synthesizer,” and “a compressor.” There is no indication in the record before us that the Examiner has considered these limitations in light of the Specification in order to determine what claim 1 as a whole is “directed to.”

Claim 23 recites three means-plus-function limitations: “means for aligning,” “means for identifying,” and “means for transmitting.” Means-plus-function claim language must be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, by “look[ing] to the specification and interpret[ing] that language in light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification provides such disclosure.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). ...  There is no indication in the record that the required analysis was performed.

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01 , 2114

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3786 Ex Parte Cain et al 12868775 - (D) STEPHENS 103 SHAY GLENN LLP AKAR, SERKAN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Semersky et al 12144885 - (D) RANGE 103 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP YAGER, JAMES C

1788 Ex Parte OGAWA et al 13155872 - (D) NAGUMO 103 LEE & MORSE, P.C. DUCHENEAUX, FRANK D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2139 Ex Parte Westlund et al 14510946 - (D) JEFFERY 112(2) 103 DOUGLAS L WELLER KNIGHT, PAUL M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex Parte Werjefelt 12859067 - (D) INGLESE 103 SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY LLP MIKAILOFF, STEFAN

2835 Ex Parte Polizzotto et al 13573131 - (D) HOUSEL 103 GORDON E. GRAY, III EDWARDS, ANTHONY Q

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Zong 12919819 - (D) ADAMS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS TRAN, THO Q

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte VASWANI et al 12939702 - (R) PYONIN 103 Silver Spring Networks, Inc. PATEL, ASHOKKUMAR B

donaldson, kemco

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Owhadi 10165863 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Drudis et al 11413550 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NEALON, WILLIAM

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Jendrusch 12287241 - (D) JESCHKE 103 DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP ROGERS, LAKIYA G

For a prior art element to satisfy a means-plus-function limitation, as permitted by former 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the prior art element must either be the same as the disclosed structure or be an “equivalent[] thereof.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Two structures are “equivalent” within the meaning of the statute if they “perform the identical function, in substantially the same way, with substantially the same result.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added).

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01 , 2114

Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2103 , 2183 , 2184

3744 Ex Parte Umeno 10529154 - (D) ASTORINO 103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. ZEC, FILIP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Turner et al 11522177 - (D) JENKS 103 102/103 Wells St. John P.S. AMIN, MUSTAFA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2479 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11241684 - (D) ENGELS 112(1) 103 FLETCHER YODER (LUCENT) CEHIC, KENAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Marini 11696412 - (D) WOODS 102/103 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY CHIN-SHUE, ALVIN CONSTANTINE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Yassinzadeh 10821633 - (D) SCHOPFER 112(1) 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI DANG, PHONG SON H

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Klose et al 11009361 - (D) ADAMS 103 Jason D. Voight CHONG, YONG SOO

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Eger et al 11662618 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Casimir Jones, S.C. VALDEZ, DEVE E

1773 Ex Parte Houser et al 12572807 - (D) PAK 102/103 NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY LUDLOW, JAN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Azagury et al 12062211 - (D) SMITH 103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC DENNISON, JERRY B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Kim 13502481 - (D) DANG 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. SHAH, PRIYANK J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Jung et al 11586439 - (D) CRAWFORD 101/112(2) 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC REYES, REGINALD R

3626 Ex Parte Allard et al 11968239 - (D) WORTH 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. WINSTON III, EDWARD B

3662 Ex Parte MARKYVECH 11854344 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) TO, TUAN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Schneider 12135685 - (D) LaVIER 112(1) 103 SJM/AFD - DYKEMA c/o Kite & Key, LLC VAHDAT, KHADIJEH A

3742 Ex Parte Obersteiner 11997760 - (D) WARNER 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS STAPLETON, ERIC S

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 MICROSTRATEGY INCORPORATED, Requester v. DATAMIZE, LLC and PORTAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellants Ex Parte 6658418 et al 10/157,417 95002018 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 HolzerIPLaw, PC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FISH & RICHARDSON PC (DC) ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original ALI, MOHAMMAD

donaldson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Simard et al 11067159 - (D) GRIMES 112(6)/102/103 DWT/MannKind Corporation DIBRINO, MARIANNE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Calzia et al 12622754 - (D) SMITH 103 ROHM AND HAAS ELECTRONIC MATERIALS LLC c/o The Dow Chemical Company VETERE, ROBERT A

1714 Ex Parte FONVILLE et al 12611079 - (D) SMITH 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) LEE, DOUGLAS

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Cattell et al 11392304 - (D) GRIMES 112(2)/103 MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP TANG, JIEYING

2168 Ex Parte Cox et al 11885409 - (D) BUI 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LY, CHEYNE D

2186 Ex Parte COLGLAZIER et al 11775085 - (D) DIXON 101/102 IBM (RPS-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP ALSIP, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Seminaro et al 11151665 - (D) REIMERS 102/103 MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP WAQAS, SAAD A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Vroome 10781113 - (D) WARREN 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(2) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC CULLER, JILL E

2887 Ex Parte Kelley et al 11462814 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Haynes & Boone, LLP MAI, THIEN T

However, the Examiner does not explain how Kimura’s nulling device is structured as required by the claimed “means for nulling.” The Examiner has not provided any meaningful claim construction of the term
means for nulling as is required under § 112, sixth paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“The plain and unambiguous meaning of paragraph six is that one construing means-plus-function language in a claim must look to the specification and interpret that language in light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification provides such disclosure. Paragraph six does not state or even suggest that the PTO is
exempt from this mandate . . . .”).

As the Examiner has failed to show that Kelley’s and Ryan’s NFC device as modified by Kimura’s teaching would have the structure required by the “means for nulling” recited in the claims, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of the apparatus claims 1 and 21.

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01 , 2114

2899 Ex Parte Wicker 11714313 - (D) HANLON 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. LEE, JAE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte McDonnough et al 12057986 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC COLLINS, RAVEN

3788 Ex Parte Wood 11315379 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 TAYLOR IP, P.C. REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Thornton 11768457 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. LOPEZ ALVAREZ, OLVIN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Carter et al 10706421 - (D) DANG 112(1) 101/103 ARRIS TIV, BACKHEAN

2454 Ex Parte Alimi et al 12115257 - (D) CALVE 103 103 CAHN & SAMUELS, LLP LIN, WEN TAI

2485 Ex Parte Adams 11113335 - (D) EVANS 102 102 BGL/Broadcom TORRENTE, RICHARD T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Nammi et al 11231492 - (D) ZECHER 102 112(2) Graybeal Jackson Haley LLP / Jablonski Law Group LEIVA, FRANK M

AFFIRMED
1674 Ex Parte PALMER 12269967 - (D) REIMERS 103 Alchemy-Partners, PC SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Cho et al 12472230 - (D) BEST 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP TALBOT, BRIAN K

1762 Ex Parte Bodart et al 12296977 - (D) SMITH 102/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC ENG, ELIZABETH

1762 Ex Parte Pujari et al 12542424 - (D) WARREN 102/103 obviousnes-type double patenting LeClairRyan METZMAIER, DANIEL S

1766 Ex Parte Eibeck et al 12711313 - (D) HOUSEL 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP FANG, SHANE

1773 Ex Parte Shenoy 11307965 - (D) KIMLIN 103 NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY SASAKI, SHOGO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Borowski et al 11120860 - (D) CHEN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PATEL, JIGAR P

2172 Ex Parte Haitani et al 11434502 - (D) JENKS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TAN, ALVIN H

2172 Ex Parte Heer et al 11844833 - (D) JENKS 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG HUR, ECE

2186 Ex Parte Branscome et al 12567624 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Brocade-Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford ALSIP, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Marilly et al 11516777 - (D) COURTENAY 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT BANTAMOI, ANTHONY

2424 Ex Parte Jendbro 11433815 - (D) COURTENAY 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. TILAHUN, ALAZAR

2437 Ex Parte Wee et al 10245344 - (D) THOMAS 112(1)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY GELAGAY, SHEWAYE

2453 Ex Parte Hamedi 11064140 - (D) REIMERS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LINDSEY, MATTHEW S

2466 Ex Parte Sridhar et al 11956321 - (D) DANG 103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC JAROENCHONWANIT, BUNJOB

2492 Ex Parte Berg et al 10901599 - (D) REIMERS 103 IBM CORPORATION KIM, TAE K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Powell et al 12154272 - (D) HASTINGS 103 RGIP LLC DINH, PHUONG K

2837 Ex Parte Palumbo et al 11946207 - (D) BEST 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER LUKS, JEREMY AUSTIN

2852 Ex Parte Toh et al 12117843 - (D) PAK 102 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP BEATTY, ROBERT B

2872 Ex Parte Mann et al 12702040 - (D) GARRIS 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) CHWASZ, JADE R

2883 Ex Parte Hwang et al 12033906 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC ROJAS, OMAR R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte JONES et al 12134671 - (D) REIMERS 112(2) 102 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT TROY, DANIEL J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Haesloop et al 11284679 - (D) ASTORINO 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP BAYOU, AMENE SETEGNE

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Parkes et al 11423108 - (D) KALAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. CHOI, PETER Y

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Pong 11529357 - (D) KRATZ 102 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. ELMS, RICHARD T

2891 Ex Parte Wang et al 11361249 - (D) NEW 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. SLUTSKER, JULIA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Anderson 11831625 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) EVERAGE, KEVIN D

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. AND ZIMMER, INC. Requester v. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000428 6818020 10/461,636 GUEST 103 102 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE original BERMAN, SUSAN W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex parte HTI IP, LLC 90011304 6,604,033 09/776,033 MARTIN 102/103 102 HUGHES TELEMATICS, INC. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. CABRERA, ZOILA E original ZANELLI, MICHAEL J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS, LLC and BIOMET MANUFACTURING CORPORATION Third Party Requester, Cross-Appellant v. HUDSON SURGICAL DESIGN, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001469 7344541 10/756,817 MARTIN 112(1)/112(2)/102 112(1)/112(2)/102 Patterson, Thuente, Skaar & Chistensen, P.A. Third Party Reqeuster: Troutman Sanders, LLP REIP, DAVID OWEN original HOFFMAN, MARY C

3762 CIRCULITE, INC. Respondent, Cross-Appellant, Requester v. HEARTWARE, INC. Appellant, Cross-Respondent, Patent Owner 95001858 6530876 09/557,562 McCARTHY 103 103 COOLEY LLP Third Party Requester: SNR DENTON US LLP FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original BOCKELMAN, MARK

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte PLASTICOS VANDUX DE COLUMBIA S.A. Patent Owner and Appellant 90011572 6,739,016 09/954,131 KERINS 102 102/103 KAIN & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A. Third Part Requester: James D. Petruzzi WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original SPISICH, MARK

2771 Ex parte MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC Appellant 90012080 6049796 08/803,814 MORGAN 102 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: THE MARBURY LAW GROUP, PLLC POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original JUNG, DAVID YIUK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 KRONOPOL SP. Z O. O. Requester v. FAUS GROUP INC. Patent Owner 95001516 6688061 10/127,602 MARTIN 102/103 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original THISSELL, JENNIFER I

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 OWENS CORNING CORPORATION Requester v. AIRVENT, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant 95001952 6793574 10/600,397 SONG 102 102/103 Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWALD LLP original ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT English, Peter C. original BOLES, DEREK

envirco, kemco, b. braun, donaldson, ibormeith, innovention toys, wyers, KSR, klein, bigio, encyclopaedia

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12752581 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12490018 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON

Construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is a two-step process. First, the claim must be analyzed to determine whether the claim language actually invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. See Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“If a claim element contains the word ‘means’ and recites a function, th[e] court presumes that element is a means-plus-function element under § 112, ¶ 6. . . . That presumption falls, however, if the claim itself recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.”). The second step is to “determine what structures have been disclosed in the specification that correspond to the means for performing that function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112, ¶ 6.” B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A means-plus-function claim “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that “the 'broadest reasonable interpretation' that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six of 35 USC § 112.” MPEP § 2181. “Accordingly, the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.” (id.) This “sets a limit on how broadly the PTO may construe means-plus-function language under the rubric of reasonable interpretation.” (emphasis added.) In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Thus, as articulated in MPEP 2181, “the USPTO must apply 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph in appropriate cases, and give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of and consistent with the written description of the invention in the application.” [Emphasis added.] (See also, Br. 3.)

A structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as a “corresponding structure” if the specification or the prosecution history “clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With means-plus-function claiming, the narrower the disclosed structure in the specification, the narrower the claim coverage. Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 732 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2181

Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) , 2103,2183, 2184

B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 43 USPQ2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2163, 2181, 2182

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Harrington et al 11459371 - (D) FREDMAN 101/103 Basch & Nickerson LLP QUADER, FAZLUL

2174 Ex Parte Chen et al 10427279 - (D) HOMERE 103 DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. International Business Machines Corporation NGUYEN, LE V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Deno et al 11116569 - (D) HULSE 112(1)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BAYS, PAMELA M

3788 Ex Parte Livingston 11938849 - (D) MORRISON 102/103 GE ENERGY GENERAL ELECTRIC C/O ERNEST G. CUSICK REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Kulkarni 11549023 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 Siemens Corporation EDWARDS, LINGLAN E

Whether a prior art reference is analogous to the claimed invention such that it qualifies as prior art for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a question of fact. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm't., Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In KSR, the Supreme Court “direct[ed] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 402); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 420. In an obviousness analysis,

[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.

In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Determining whether art is in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s claimed invention “requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention's subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. Although the Examiner is correct that the Examiner’s claimed invention and the cited references are all broadly directed to computer programming (Ans. 24), Subramanian diverges substantially from the “the embodiments, function, and structure of [Appellant’s] claimed invention,” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, and the other cited prior art.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, ,   2145,   2216,   2242,   2286,   2616,   2642, 2686.04

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Klapka et al 10497852 - (D) NEW 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) WALSH, DANIEL I

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Barry et al 11451634 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 102/103 MAYER & WILLIAMS PC BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Nagghappan 12904286 - (D) MURPHY 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC KEYWORTH, PETER

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Lee et al 12100173 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. BATURAY, ALICIA

2448 Ex Parte Bowen et al 11778354 - (D) FETTING Dissenting-in-part and Concurring-in-part SPAHN 101 101/103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON STRANGE, AARON N

2452 Ex Parte Wardwell 10529701 - (D) Per Curiam 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. NGUYEN, THU V

2452 Ex Parte Curtis et al 11483347 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC GOLABBAKHSH, EBRAHIM

2478 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11953810 - (D) WINSOR 103 LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE SCIACCA, SCOTT M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Primous et al 11529709 - (D) SHIANG 103 Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P. -Hubbell NWUGO, OJIAKO K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Joachim et al 11661161 - (D) KALAN 102/103 VENABLE LLP CHAN, TSZFUNG JACKIE

2853 Ex Parte Laksin et al 10586098 - (D) KALAN 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP SHAH, MANISlH S

2878 Ex Parte Feliss et al 10931679 - (D) KALAN 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP DOWLING, WILLIAM C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Gordon 11351790 - (D) SMEGAL 103 GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. MCCARRY JR,ROBERT J

3657 Ex Parte Balsells 12614769 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP BURCH, MELODY M

3689 Ex Parte Niethammer 10804683 - (D) FETTING 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Field 11748740 - (D) MORRISON 103 FAY SHARPE LLP WEAVER, SUE A

3788 Ex Parte Olsen et al 11512677 - (D) CAPP 103/obviousness-type double patenting Pauley Peterson & Erickson REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC, MEDTRONIC CV LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR GALWAY, LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, AND EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES (U.S.), INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1117 7,892,281 12/348,892 10/412,634 11/352,614 12/029,031 PROST SJ invalidity 102 35 U.S.C. § 120 Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

Citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., 609 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the district court noted that under § 120, a later filed application may claim priority based on an earlier filed application if, inter alia, the later filed application contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.

Section 120 allows a later filed patent application to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States if, among other requirements,3 “it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application . . . submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director.” 35 U.S.C. § 120. We recently clarified that the “specific reference” requirement mandates “each [intermediate] application in the chain of priority to refer to the prior applications.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1352.

3 The other requirements, which are not at issue in this appeal, are that (1) the invention described in the new application must be disclosed in an application previously filed in the United States; (2) the application must be filed by the inventor(s) named in the previously filed application; and (3) the application must be co-pending with the earlier application at some point. 35 U.S.C. § 120; Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1349-50.

aoyama, golight, donaldson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Flinchem 11613817 - (D) ANDERSON 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP AFOLABI, MARK O

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Marsili 11090811 - (D) MORGAN 103 Dicke, Billig & Czaja, PLLC MALEK, LEILA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Lassl et al 11530293 - (D) SPAHN 112(1)/103 Just Intellectuals, PLLC WESTBROOK, SUNSURRAYE

3646 Ex Parte McCarty et al 11735612 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A

The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation “is to define the particular function of the claim limitation.” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation “is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” Id. at 1297 (quoting Golight, 355 F.3d at 1334). As explained in In re Donaldson, “the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Rather, the PTO must look to the Specification and construe the “means” language recited in the claim as limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification and equivalents thereof. Id.

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2182

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Wright et al 11526953 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Pitroda 11931872 - (D) KIM 101/102/103 102./103 Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz NGUYEN, NGA B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte Kay et al 10200002 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP WHITEMAN, BRIAN A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte De Villiers et al 11982431 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD

3753 Ex Parte Neff et al 11045448 - (D) SPAHN 103 Phillips McFall McCaffrey McVay & Murrah, P.C. SCHNEIDER, CRAIG M

3767 Ex Parte Weilbacher 11517043 - (D) ADAMS 103 Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

3777 Ex Parte Stamatas et al 10986941 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON CHENG, JACQUELINE