general foods, vogel, eli lilly

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Wilkinson 11041758 - (D) BAHR 103 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS CONLEY, FREDRICK C

AFFIRMED
1786 Ex Parte Quinn et al 13970238 - (D) McGEE 103 Dodd Call Black, PLLC VINEIS, FRANK J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2459 Ex Parte Turk 11897182 - (D) HAGY 103 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Dhayagude et al 11942239 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI double patenting 103 Fish & Richardson PC / Atmel ABDIN, SHAHEDA A

We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection does not clearly explain or compare the instant claims with claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent. The key question in any obviousness double patenting analysis is: “Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent asserted as supporting double patenting?” General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970)). Answering this question requires that the decision-maker first construe the claims in the patent and the claims under review and determine the differences between them. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2001). After determining the differences, the decision-maker must determine whether the differences in subject matter render the claims patentably distinct.Id. Where the subject matter of a pending claim under review is an obvious variation of the subject matter of a patented claim, the pending claim is not patentably distinct. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 , 804.01 , 804.02 , 1504.06

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 , 2144.08 , 2165.01

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte McGuire 13096712 - (D) BARRY 103 THE GRIFFITH LAW FIRM, A P.C. WU, JERRY

“[T]hat two inventions were designed to resolve different problems ... is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

general foods, vogel, eli lilly, aldrich

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Chardon et al 11742019 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HUYNH, THU V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2674 Ex Parte Zeng 11827741 - (D) POLLOCK 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PAYER, PAUL F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Teratani et al 11408240 - (D) HASTINGS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1755 Ex Parte Fulton et al 12292346 - (D) TIMM double patenting 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC TRINH, THANH TRUC

The key question in any obviousness double patenting analyis is: "Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent asserted as supporting double patenting?"  General Foods Corp. v. Studiengessellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed, Cir, 1992) (discussing In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970)). Answering this question requires that the decision-maker first construe the claims in the patent and the claims under review and determine the differences between them.  Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  After determinig the differences, the decision-maker must determine whether the differences in subject matter render the claims patentably distinct. Id. Where the subject matter of a pending claim under review is an obvious variation of the subject matter of a patented claim, the pending claim is not patentably distinct.  In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

It is critical during the analysis that no part of the patent be used as "prior art" against the claims under review.  This includes the claims themselves. See In re Aldrich, 398 F.2d 855, 859 (CCPA 1968) ("double patenting rejection[s] cannot be based on section 103,... or on the disclosures of the patents whose claims are relied on to demonstrate double patenting or on the 'disclosures' of their claims... [P]atent claims are looked to only to see what has been patented, the subject matter which has been protected, not for something one may find to be disclosed by reading them") (emphasis added).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 , 804.01 , 804.02 , 1504.06

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 , 2144.08 , 2165.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Miller 11958337 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC FLYNN, RANDY A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Yin et al 12117927 - (D) FINK 102/103 KIRTON MCCONKIE RICHER, AARON M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Kwong et al 11488799 - (D) COURTENAY 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. CHEN, XIAOLIANG

braat, berg, eli lilly, basell, emert, goodman, fallaux

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Dal 10554644 - (D) OWENS 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON CHAWLA, JYOTI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Klein 11442966 - (D) HILL 103 Daniel J. Swirsky NGUYEN, THAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Uysal et al 11498344 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RAHMAN, SABANA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Kiryati et al 10930254 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP WERNER, DAVID N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Brunner et al 11073069 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. MCDONALD, SHANTESE L

3764 Ex Parte Axelrod 11338213 - (D) SPAHN 103 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) PASTEL LAW FIRM THANH, LOAN H

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1675 Ex Parte Pohl et al 11869693 - (D) FREDMAN obviousness-type double patenting Pabst Patent Group LLP BRADLEY,CHRISTINA

“Obviousness-type double patenting is a judicially created doctrine intended to prevent improper timewise extension of the patent right by prohibiting the issuance of claims in a second patent which are not ‘patentably distinct’ from the claims of a first patent.” In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “It requires rejection of an application claim when the claimed subject matter is not patentably distinct from the subject matter claimed in a commonly owned patent.” In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Two different tests have been set forth to determine whether the claims of an application are obvious over the claims of a commonly-owned patent. The “one-way” test asks whether the application claims under examination are obvious in view of the patent claims. Berg, 140 F.3d at 1432. The one-way test is the test usually applied in obvious-type double patenting rejections. In unusual circumstances, a “two-way” test is applied in which a second question (the second “way”) is asked: whether the patent claims are obvious in view of the application claims. Id.

“The two-way test is only appropriate in the unusual circumstance where, inter alia, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is ‘solely responsible for the delay in causing the second-filed application to issue prior to the first.”’ Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 n.7 (Fed.Cir.2001) (quoting Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437); see also Basell, 547 F.3d at 1376; Emert, 124 F.3d at 1461 (applying the one-way test because the applicant “had significant control over the rate of prosecution of the application,” “was responsible for the delays in prosecution,” and “orchestrated the rate of prosecution”); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (applying the one-way test because “PTO actions did not dictate the rate of prosecution”); . . . . In short, the applicant is entitled to the narrow exception of the two-way test when the PTO is at fault for the delay that causes the improvement patent to issue prior to the basic patent.

In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Braat, In re, 937 F.2d 589, 19 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 804
Berg, In re, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 804
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 , 2144.08 , 2165 , 2165.01
Emert, In re, 124 F.3d 1458, 44 USPQ2d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 804
Goodman, In re, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 804 , 806.04(i) , 1504.06 , 2164.06(b) , 2164.08

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Benevides et al 11573314 - (D) SMITH 103 Waters Technologies Corporation ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte Holley et al 11402648 - (D) SHIANG 103 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP TSENG, CHENG YUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Vagnati 11828490 - (D) SAADAT 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. VU, NGOC K

2426 Ex Parte Allport 10250150 - (D) STRAUSS 102 PIONEER NORTH AMERICA, INC. PENG, HSIUNGFEI POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original MEI, XU

2456 Ex Parte Ahmed et al 11804463 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. MCKENZIE, MARCUS A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Zikria et al 11280104 - (D) SCHEINER 103 EVELYN M. SOMMER FRONDA, CHRISTIAN L

2622 Ex Parte Chen et al 11228824 - (D) EVANS 102/103 LIU & LIU HICKS, CHARLES V

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Soyano 12232839 - (D) GARRIS 103 KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP GUPTA, RAJ R

2875 Ex Parte Karman et al 12091592 - (D) GARRIS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DZIERZYNSKI, EVAN P

2885 Ex Parte North 11925674 - (D) HASTINGS 101 obviousness-type double patenting GREG L. MARTINEZ MACCHIAROLO, LEAH SIMONE

2891 Ex Parte Bedell et al 12472943 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP SLUTSKER, JULIA

2893 Ex Parte Berman et al 11012838 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP RODELA, EDUARDO A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Haggard et al 11355813 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. POON, ROBERT

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Wei 10394137 - (D) EVANS 103 GARRETT IP, LLC C/O CPA Global NEGIN, RUSSELL SCOTT

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 APPLE COMPUTER INC. Requester v. MPMAN.COM, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000278 7065417 10/059,777 BLANKENSHIP 103 "LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY Third Party Requester: Novak, Druce & Quigg, LLP

boesch, sebek, eli lilly, berg

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte Palle et al 11555951 - (D) ADAMS 103 DR. REDDY''S LABORATORIES, INC. COUGHLIN, MATTHEW P

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Zanzig et al 11820684 - (D) KRATZ 103 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

In this regard, while it is generally a matter of obviousness for the skilled artisan to determine the optimum value within a disclosed range, In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980), it may not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum value that is significantly outside the range taught by the prior art. See In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907 (CCPA 1972).

Boesch, In re, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . 716.02(b), 2144.05

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Lau et al 11172226 - (D) COURTENAY 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN DUDEK JR, EDWARD J

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Vanttinen et al 09864017 - (D) DIXON 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC TRUONG, THANHNGA B

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Nall et al 11323637 - (D) ZECHER 103 FAY SHARPE LLP/GE LIGHTING SOLUTIONS, LLC SAWHNEY, HARGOBIND S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte van Zuilekom 11336513 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione/Ann Arbor Parsley, David

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Zhou et al 10346697 - (D) McCOLLUM 102/103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC Flick, Jason

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Du et al 11850243 - (D) REIMERS 102/103 102 SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS HUTCHINS, CATHLEEN R

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Carty et al 11775002 - (D) GRIMES 103/obviousness-type double patenting Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner KASSA, TIGABU

1633 Ex Parte Dzau et al 10850994 - (D) ADAMS obviousness-type double patenting J. MICHAEL SCHIFF Marvich, Maria

See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 969 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The two-way test is only appropriate in the unusual circumstance where, inter alia, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") is 'solely responsible for the delay in causing the second-filed application to issue prior to the first.'”) (quoting In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998), emphasis added by the Eli Lilly court).

Berg, In re, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . .804, 2144.08, 2165, 2165.01

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Tompkins et al 11726561 - (D) OBERMANN 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY HUG, JOHN ERIC

1785 Ex Parte Lu 12168920 - (D) GAUDETTE 112(2)/102 LEONG C. LEI RUTHKOSKY, MARK

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Levine 10041081 - (D) WEINBERG 112(1)/112(2)/103 Perman & Green, LLP PAULA, CESAR B

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Mackenzie et al 11559977 - (D) KRIVAK 103 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC SWARTHOUT, BRENT

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Mongeon et al 10663570 - (D) GREEN 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. D ABREU, MICHAEL JOSEPH

antonie, kyocera, epstein, eli lilly

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Maschmeyer et al 10/490,028 GREEN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER OH, TAYLOR V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Loose et al 09/821,195 O’NEILL 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER
MOSSER, ROBERT E

For an obviousness rejection to be maintained, the combination of elements selected from each reference in combination must represent the claimed invention as a whole. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 619 (CCPA 1977) (“Just as we look to a chemical and its properties when we examine the obviousness of a composition of matter claim, it is this invention as a whole, and not some part of it, which must be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.”) (emphasis original).

Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .2141.02, 2144.05

3753 Ex Parte Hoshi et al 09/893,522 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C

3766 Ex Parte Harris et al 10/958,210 O’NEILL 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. EXAMINER BERTRAM, ERIC D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kitsukawa 09/802,635 KOHUT 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Koerner et al 10/777,257 LEBOVITZ 112(1)/102(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, NIHIR B

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/165,386 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER GOFMAN, ALEX N

2179 Ex Parte Lauterbach et al 10/676,364 COURTENAY 102(b) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

Cf. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. International Trade Com'n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1351 (Fed Cir. 2008) (“The record evidence suggests that the GSM standard is not a single reference. The different specifications that comprise the GSM standard were authored by different subsets of authors at different times. Indeed, the GSM standard includes hundreds of individual specifications drafted by approximately ten different subgroups, each with its own title and separate page numbering. Each specification, though part of the greater GSM standard, stands as a separate document in its own right. Even Qualcomm's witness-admittedly one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about the operation of GSM-testified that she had not read the entire standard and did not know of any person who had read the entire standard. Open Session Tr. 1712, Mar. 15, 2006. Under these circumstances, the GSM standard is actually several prior art references with separate dates of creation, rather than a single prior art reference.”).

...

The Examiner also cites In re Epstein, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994). (See Ans. 11). In Epstein, our reviewing court determined that the Board did not err in determining that various third-party software products were “in public use or on sale” more than one year before Applicant’s filing date based upon abstracts which indicated when the products were “first installed” or “released” more than one year prior to Applicant’s filing date.

...

Under this approach to establishing anticipation, the multiple references are not separate anticipatory references; rather, it is the single device that anticipates a claim if the multiple references (or other evidence) establish that the single device had all the claimed features and was in public use or was offered for sale “more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.” (Id.).

Epstein, In re, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . 716.07, 2128, 2133.03(b)
2185 Ex Parte Farrell 11/218,994 HOMERE 103(a) FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) EXAMINER DINH, NGOC V

2187 Ex Parte Cochran et al 10/798,962 HUGHES 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BRADLEY, MATTHEW A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Fang 09/962,861 NAPPI 102(e) KACVINSKY DAISAK PLLC C/O CPA Global EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M

2451 Ex Parte He 10/222,059 NAPPI 103(a) Anderson Gorecki & Manaras, LLP Attn: John C. Gorecki EXAMINER MADAMBA, GLENFORD J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Cheung et al 12/000,644 CALVE 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Bergersen 10/449,312 McCARTHY 102(b)/non-statutory double patenting PATENTS+TMS, P.C. EXAMINER LEWIS, RALPH A

From a general perspective, the Examiner’s duty in rejecting a claim for obviousness-type double patenting is the same as a Court’s duty when holding a claim invalid on the same ground:

Generally, an obviousness-type double patenting analysis entails two steps. First, as a matter of law, a court construes the claim in the earlier patent and the claim in the later patent and determines the differences. Second, the court determines whether the differences in subject matter between the two claims render the claims patentably distinct. A later claim that is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim in a commonly owned patent is invalid for obvious-type double patenting. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal citations and footnote omitted).

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . .804, 2144.08, 2165, 2165.01

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2192 Ex Parte Asare et al 10/726,192 BARRY 102(b)/101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN

basell, berg, eli lilly, graves, LeGrice, sasse, amgen2

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/08/2011 1623 Ex Parte Damien et al 10/920,297 FREDMAN 112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WHITE, EVERETT NMN

“In determining double patenting, a one-way test is normally applied, in which "the examiner asks whether the application claims are obvious over the patent claims."” In re Basell Poliolefine Italia S.P.A., 547 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The two-way test “is a narrow exception to the general rule of the one-way test.” Berg, 140 F.3d at 1432. “The two-way test is only appropriate in the unusual circumstance where, inter alia, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") is "solely responsible for the delay in causing the second-filed application to issue prior to the first."” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 n. 7 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437).

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . .804, 2144.08, 2165, 2165.01

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/08/2011 2444 Ex Parte Obradovich et al 09/910,510 NAPPI 103(a) CHRISTIE PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/12/2011 1627 Ex Parte Perc et al 10/531,540 FREDMAN 103(a) Cozen O''Connor EXAMINER JEAN-LOUIS, SAMIRA JM

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/08/2011 1724 Ex Parte Mole 10/471,304 NAGUMO 103(a) HONEYWELL/HUSCH EXAMINER OLSEN, KAJ K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/08/2011 2491 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 10/160,984 BAUMEISTER 112(2)/102(e) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/11/2011 2826 Ex Parte Stephenson et al 10/120,814 ROBERTSON 102(e) Michael G. Fletcher Fletcher, Yoder & Van Someren EXAMINER WILLIAMS, ALEXANDER O

A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention “such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.” See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962)).

Further, the Federal Circuit has instructed:

In patent prosecution the examiner is entitled to reject application claims as anticipated by a prior art patent without conducting an inquiry into whether or not that patent is enabled or whether or not it is the claimed material (as opposed to the unclaimed disclosures) in that patent that are at issue. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681, 207 USPQ 107, 111 (C.C.P.A.1980) (“[W]hen the PTO cited a disclosure which expressly anticipated the present invention . . . the burden was shifted to the applicant. He had to rebut the presumption of the operability of [the prior art patent] by a preponderance of the evidence.”). The applicant, however, can then overcome that rejection by proving that the relevant disclosures of the prior art patent are not enabled. Id.

Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (footnotes omitted).

LeGrice, In re, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2121.03

Sasse, In re, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.07, 2121, 2121.02

DISMISSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/12/2011 1642 Ex Parte BERNDORFF et al 12/211,198 JORDAN abandoned MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER AEDER, SEAN E

07/12/2011 1643 Ex Parte Zhao et al 10/335,056 JORDAN RCE MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE

07/12/2011 1643 Ex Parte ZHAO et al 12/422,863 JORDAN RCE MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE